TRAFFIC DISRUPTION CAMPAIGN BY "JUSTICE
\" ^ FOR JANITORS"
Y4.G W7:l b7/l2
Traffic Disruption Canpaign by "Jus...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 6, 1995
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Pen o ,
.^f""*
ic-7
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-598 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Wa'^hington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053970-6
JRAFHC DISRUPTION CAMPAIGN BY "JUSTICE
FOR JANITORS"
Y4.G 74/7:167/12
Traffic Disruption Canpaign by "Jus...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
OCTOBER 6, 1995
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
•^ ' fS;?
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-598 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Document.s, Congressional Sales Office, Wa'-hington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053970-6
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York
DAN BURTON, Indiana
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
STEPHEN HORN, CaUfomia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania
RANDY TATE, Washington
DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, lUinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
STEVE C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD, South
Carolina
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
CARDISS COLLINS, lUinois
HENRY A. WAXMAN, CaUfomia
TOM LANTOS, California
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina
LOUISE Mcintosh slaughter. New
York
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
DC
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
GENE GREEN, Texas
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
BILL K. BREWSTER, Oklahoma
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
James L. Clarke, Staff Director
Kevin Sabo, General Counsel
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Bud Myers, Minority Staff Director
District of Columbia Subcommittee
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York Columbia
STEVE C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
Ex Officio
WILLUM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
Ron Hamm, Staff Director
Howard Denis, Counsel
Ellen Brown, Clerk
Cedric Hendricks, Minority Professional Staff
(II)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on October 6, 1995 1
Statement of:
Garrett, Captain Donald P., Virginia Department of State Police, 7th
Division; Ronald W. Kosh, general manager, AAA-Potomac; Emily
Vetter, president. Hotel Association of the District of Columbia; Steve
Eldridge, acting director, Metro Traffic Control 23
Monroe, Rodney, inspector, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police De-
partment 6
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress From the State
of Virginia:
Letter from Jay Hessey, executive director, Local 82, Service Employ-
ees International Union, dated October 5, 1995 45
Briefing Memo for Justice for Janitors Hearing 46
Newspaper articles:
Janitors Union Expands Its Campaign; Rally for Office Crews
Mushrooms Into Highly Visible Crusade Against D.C. Program
Cuts, March 13, 1995, Washington Post by Pamela Constable .. 50
Roosevelt Bridge Blocked in Protest of D.C. Budget; Justice for
Janitors Brings Morning Commute to Standstill, September
21, 1995, Washington Post by Marianne Kyriakos 47
Taking It to the Streets; Justice for Janitors Causes a Dust-
Up. But Are They Heroes or Hooligans?, April 14, 1995, Wash-
ington Post by Mary Ann French 48
150 Arrested in Downtown D.C. Protest; 650 Union Activists,
Supporters Block Commuter Traffic for 2nd Day, March 23,
1995, Washington Post by Wendy Melillo 49
Prepared statment of 2
Garrett, Captain Donald P., Virginia Department of State Police, 7th
Division, prepared statement of 25
Kosh, Ronald W., general manager, AAA-Potomac, prepared statement
of 27
Soulsby, Larry D., chief of pohce, Metropolitan Police Department, pre-
pared statement of 9
Vetter, Emily, president, Hotel Association of the District of Coliunbia,
prepared statement of 30
(III)
TRAFFIC DISRUPTION CAMPAIGN BY
"JUSTICE FOR JANITORS"
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1995
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:38 p.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas M. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis and Norton.
Also present: Representative Moran.
Staff" present: Ron Hamm, staff" director; Howard Denis, counsel;
Al Felzenberg, professional staff"; Anne Mack, press secretary; Ellen
Brown, clerk; and Cedric Hendricks, minority professional staff".
Mr. Davis. Good afternoon. Welcome.
We have scheduled this hearing in response to a series of actions
that have been undertaken as part of the "Justice for Janitors"
campaign of the Service Employees International Union. This
group is well-known for the confrontational style they use to fur-
ther their organizational and political agendas.
These actions may be motivated by noble intentions, but they
also have the undeniable eff"ect of disrupting the lives of hundreds
of thousands of ordinary men and women and interfering with the
orderly conduct of both public and private business.
Most recently, people claiming an affiliation with that entity
blocked all lanes on the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge at the
height of the morning rush hour. Transportation experts estimate
that at least 100,000 commuters and bystanders were directly af-
fected by this action.
The people who planned and participated in these events did
much more than interrupt the orderly flow of traffic in and out of
our Nation's Capital; they placed at risk the safety and security of
hundreds of thousands of people, who had done them no harm and
were only trying to get to work or go about their daily business.
In a letter I received about the blocking of the Roosevelt Bridge,
one of my constituents described the events as traffic terrorism.
Like other forms of terrorism, this certainly involved the taking of
hostages. Perhaps the instigators of this blockade believed that by
drawing attention to themselves and their cause in this rather con-
temptible and lawless way, they will breathe new life in the most
militant elements of the political arena in the labor movement. Per-
haps they have read too much of the rhetoric associated with labor
(1)
The truth is that responsible labor leaders do not place other
people's children, parents, spouses, health professionals, employers,
employees, clients and customers in physical jeopardy. Clearly,
there are better legal ways to air grievances than these.
The effects of this campaign are indiscriminate. The potential ex-
ists for this type of campaign to have unintended and tragic con-
sequences. Imagine an ambulance being caught up in one of those
actions. How would the organizers of "Janitors for Justice" feel if
one of their loved ones was badly in need of such service but
trapped by a protest? Fortunately, this has not yet happened, but
it is an ever-present threat each time they stop traffic.
The purpose of today's hearing is to probe into what is an obvi-
ous campaign on the part of some to disrupt the orderly traffic pat-
tern in this Capital region. We will attempt to find out precisely
what has been happening, why it's been happening, and what Con-
gress can do to discourage and prevent its recurrence.
I intend through this hearing and other communications with
business, labor and industry, to send a loud and clear message that
these actions will not be tolerated. I want everyone to know that
the Nation's Capital will remain open to business and government.
The Federal Government and those it serves have a compelling
interest in keeping the Nation's Capital open. Congress has an obli-
gation to see that it stays so. Hasn't Washington, DC. enough secu-
rity problems without having to worry about this? We've already
seen security increased around the White House, at the Capitol,
and at the Nation's airports. Now we have to worry about the high-
ways.
If penalties for actions of this kind are not increased or more ef-
fective disincentives are not found, where will this spiral of do-it-
yourself terrorism end?
All of this is very much Congress' business. It is precisely this
type of emergency public health and safety issue that demonstrates
the wisdom of those who framed the Constitution. Situations of this
kind I have described in and around this Capital extend well be-
yond the reach of any city, county or State.
The Federal interest in this case is clear and unambiguous. The
ability of the Federal Government to operate must be maintained.
Congressional action would not be contrary to home rule, but is
part of its very essence. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Con-
stitution grants Congress authority "to exercise legislation in all
cases whatsoever over such District." This subcommittee will con-
tinue to look into the issues raised today to determine the extent
to which additional legislation may be warranted.
I yield now to my colleague, Ms. Norton, the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Virginia
Good afternoon and welcome.
We have scheduled this hearing in response to a series of actions that have been
undertaken as part of the "Justice for Janitors" campaign of the Service Employees
International Ihiion. This group is well known for the confrontational style they use
3
to further their organizational and political agendas. These actions may be moti-
vated by noble intentions. But they also have the undeniable effect of disrupting the
lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women and interfering with the
orderly conduct of both public and private business.
Most recently, people claiming an affiliation with that entity blocked all lanes on
the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge at the height of the morning rush hour.
Transportation experts estimate that at least 100,000 commuters and bystanders
were directly affected by this action. The people who planned and participated in
these events did much more than interrupt the orderly flow of traffic in and out of
our nation's capital city. They placed at risk the safety and security of hundreds of
thousands of people, who had done them no harm and were only trying to get to
work or go about their business. In a letter I received about the blocking of the Roo-
sevelt Bridge, one of my constituents described the events as "traffic terrorism."
Like other forms of "terrorism", this certainly involved the taking of hostages.
Perhaps the instigators of this blockade believe that by drawing attention to
themselves and their cause in this rather contemptible and lawless way, they will
breathe new life into the most militant elements of the political arena and the labor
movement. Perhaps, they have read too much of the rhetoric associated with labor
struggles of earlier decades and have seen so many movies that they have lost touch
with reality. The truth is that responsible labor leaders do not place other people's
children, parents, spouses, health professionals, employers, employees, clients, and
customers, in physical jeopardy. Clearly there are better, legal ways to air griev-
ances than these.
The effects of this campaign are indiscriminate. The potential exists for this t3rpe
of campaign to have unintended but tragic consequences. Imagine an ambulance
being caught up in one of these actions. How would the organizers of "Justice for
Janitors" feel if one of their loved ones was badly in need of such services but
trapped by a protest? Fortunately, this has not yet happened; but it is an ever
present threat each time they stop traffic.
The purpose of today's hearing is to probe into what is an obvious campaign on
the part of some to disrupt the orderly traffic pattern in this capital region. We will
attempt to find out precisely what has been happening, why it has been happening,
and what Congress can do to discourage and prevent its reoccurrence.
I intend through this hearing and other communications with business, labor, and
industry to send a loud and clear message that these actions will not be tolerated.
I want everyone to know that the nation's capital will remain open to business and
government. The federal government and those it serves have a compelling interest
in keeping the nation's capital open. Congress has an obligation to see that it stays
so.
Hasn't Washington, D.C., enough security concerns without having to worry about
this? We have already seen security increased around the White House, at the Cap-
itol, and at the nation's airports. Now we have to worry about the highways.
If penalties for actions of this kind are not increased or more effective disincen-
tives are not found, where will this spiral of "do it yourself terrorism end?
All of this is very much Congress's business. It is precisely this tjrpe of emergency
pubic health and safety issue that demonstrates the wisdom of those who framed
the Constitution. Situations of the kind I have described in and around this capital
extend well beyond the reach of any city, county or, state. The federal interest in
this case is clear and unambiguous — the ability of the federal government to operate
must be maintained.
Congressional action would not be contrary to "home rule", but is part of its very
essence. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress author-
ity "To exercise legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." This Sub-
committee will continue to look into the issues raised today to determine the extent
to which additional legislation is warranted.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The chairman has called this hearing to address inconvenience
to the public arising from a blocking of traffic on bridges leading
from Fairfax County and other parts of Virginia by Justice for
Janitors, Local 82, of the Service Employees International Union.
Representatives of the union have decided not to testify at to-
day's hearing. I regret that decision, because I believe that Justice
for Janitors has a story to tell that the public needs to hear. That
story is not the subject of this hearing, however. For that reason,
versations witn me urging tne union s participation.
Their decision, I believe, is a tactical mistake. Just as I believe
that the blocking of the bridges and other disruptive tactics have
overwhelmed the union's message of fairness for workers at the
bottom of the economic ladder.
Most people do not know why the union has engaged in such tac-
tics. Thus, anger and resentment is the public reaction, rather than
identification with the workers and respect that people who work
hard for low wages deserve.
However, I do not want to pontificate about Local 82's tactics. As
a veteran civil rights worker who was on the front lines of bull-pit
activism, that would not become me.
My colleague here in the House, John Lewis and I, were activists
in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in the 1960's.
We engaged in tactics of inconvenience as well. But our direct ac-
tion, as we called it, was almost always directed at our opponents,
especially racists and segregationists, not the general public.
Ultimately, of course, we won over the public and this led to his-
toric changes in the law. I believe that a similar victory for low-
wage workers can and will occur, if the public hears their concerns.
In the past, long before today's hearing was set, I have indicated
to representatives of Justice for Janitors my own difference with
them on tactics. They are my friends, and despite the fact that I
have not prevailed with them, I appreciate the receptive way that
they have always been open to discussions with me on issues of
tactics.
Because Local 82 representatives believe that they should not ap-
pear here today, I want to say something about who they are and
about the real goals of Justice for Janitors and the workers they
seek to organize.
The members of Local 82 and those like them who are unorga-
nized, are doing exactly what the society wants them to do. They
go to work, often at night, at the lowest pay in the dirtiest, least
appreciated jobs in this city. Many have two jobs to try to cobble
enough to eat and pay the rent for their families.
Most of their members are people of color, blacks, Hispanics and
immigrants, as well as women. They do not get a statutory pay
raise or locality pay the way my Federal employee constituents do.
They are not members of the FEHBP, with 72 percent of their
health care paid by the employer. Until 7 years ago, when Justice
for Janitors began to organize in the District, these workers were
scattered, unorganized, alone, and unable to seek justice of any
kind. Only by joining a union have they had any chance to obtain
a fair wage from the considerable profits of their employers, con-
sistent with American standards of fairness.
Their demand for a living wage, and decent working conditions,
were recognized by some in 1993. I want to thank and commend
several of the District's major real estate developers who contract
for cleaning with the unionized contractors who have negotiated a
master agreement with Local 82. Among the unionized developers
are Boston Properties, JMB Realty, Mortimer Zuckerman, and
Charles Smith. Half of the cit^s 2,500 janitors that clean down-
town buildings are now organized.
This is an outstanding achievement, especially considering how
much more difficult it is to organize employees in contracted-out
services; how much more difficult it is to organize at all with to-
day's outmoded labor laws that vastly favor employers over work-
ers; and how much harder it is to overcome the threat that striker
replacement tactics pose to one of the touchstones of democracy
throughout the world, the right to organize a trade union to seek
decent wages and working conditions.
I may differ with Local 82's tactics, but I believe profoundly in
its mission. The 104th Congress has reinforced my belief in what
Justice for Janitors is doing.
The majority — the majority justifiably insisted that people like
the janitors take any available jobs. Then the majority
unjustifiably cut more than $20 billion from the Earned Income
Tax Credit for the working poor in order to help pay for a $240 bil-
lion tax cut for the rich. The Earned Income Tax Credit, until the
last Congress, had bipartisan support, because it encourages people
who make low wages nevertheless to work, helps make work more
attractive than welfare, and helps offset the tremendous burden
that unprogressive payroll taxes have on low wages.
The majority justifiably insisted that people on welfare go to
work. Then the majority unjustifiably cut the very programs that
enable the working poor to work. The majority passed a welfare bill
that froze funding for child care over the next 5 years and left to
the States the decision of whether to provide child care at all for
parents forced to work under the bill; cut $11.5 billion in Social Se-
curity Insurance benefits for disabled children; replaced the School
Lunch and Breakfast programs with a School Nutrition Block
Grant to States, to expend as they please; and cut $1.7 billion from
the Food Stamp program.
Almost two-thirds of the cuts the majority in the House has
voted, came from programs for the poor. Because of huge and un-
precedented cuts to absolutely essential programs for the poor, a
triage is sure to result. In order to clear the welfare rolls, people
who are on welfare will get priority for what remains of child care,
food stamps, school breakfast and lunches, and the rest. The great
and unacceptable irony is that working poor people like the orga-
nized and unorganized workers that concern Local 82, will be the
first to lose the very programs that enable them to work in the first
place.
The Republican majority seeks to have it both ways. The major-
ity argues that Federal money that allows a janitor to qualify for
food stamps is actually a subsidy to the employer. Yet the majority
ridicules and trivializes the notion that the minimum wage should
be raised in two separate increases, from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour.
This figure would raise the wage to where it should have been in
the 1970's. Even if the minimum wage were raised to $5.75 an
hour, this would be about $5,000 below the poverty level for a four-
person family in 1995.
This is the real and indisputable message of Justice for Janitors.
I would have preferred that you heard it in human terms, from the
janitors themselves.
I will not justify closing bridges or other tactics that block the
real message of Local 82 and are unfair to members of the public.
biic iixiixiiiiuiii wage; axxta ^J.c;^x i v xxxg vxxc; wi^xxvxxxg ^jkjkjl v/x i/xxc xxxv^vxc^ou
programs that enable them to work as janitors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
I would now like to call our first witness. Because of the sense-
less shooting of a Metropolitan Police Department officer, acting
Chief Soulsby is unable to appear before the subcommittee at this
time, but we're honored to have as his representative. Inspector
Rodney Monroe.
Inspector Monroe is the commander of the Special Operations Di-
vision. He is responsible for the execution of the city's response pol-
icy to traffic disruptions.
Welcome, Inspector Monroe. Please come forward.
I feel compelled at this point to say something about the law en-
forcement community that is not directed at you, but rather to the
increasing lack of respect in this country for all segments of law
enforcement. Recent developments in Los Angeles are regrettable
and must be dealt with and not hidden away in dark corners.
Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Good 01' Boys Roundup have raised
concerns about Federal law enforcement. The editorial in the Wall
Street Journal from Wednesday made an excellent point. Growing
distrust of and lack of respect for all segments of law enforcement
is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with seriously and hon-
estly. One part of our society or one single incident did not cause
this aura of distrust to spring up overnight. Likewise, the problems
that do exist are real and will not be solved overnight.
Another example is seen right here in the Metropolitan Police
Department where a number of factors have led to more than 700
officers to leave in the past year. I regret that this has occurred,
and I know that some of these officers are hard to replace. But the
reasons for this exodus are many and some of them complicated.
This problem cannot be solved quickly or simply. This sub-
committee will work with Chief Soulsby and the MPD, the city gov-
ernment, and the authority, to find ways to deal with the issue and
ensure first-rate law enforcement in our Nation's Capital.
Again, Inspector Monroe, I intended none of these comments to
reflect on you. I appreciate you being here.
As you know, it's the policy of this committee that all witnesses
be sworn before you testify.
[Witnesses sworn.]
STATEMENT OF RODNEY MONROE, INSPECTOR, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
The subcommittee will carefully review any written statements
you may submit. You should limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes
in accordance with our rule.
Again, I appreciate you being here.
Mr. Monroe. Thank you.
I first like to say good afternoon to Mr. Davis and also Ms. Nor-
ton, and thank you for the opportunity to speak before you on be-
half of Chief Soulsby.
I am here today at your request to discuss the concerns of the
Metropolitan PoUce Department in this recent demonstration by
the group known as Janitors for Justice. You specifically requested
that I address the Metropolitan Police Department's mass arrest
policies, the time necessary to respond to the demonstrations, loca-
tions where the arrestees live, and whether the bus that the dem-
onstrators used on September 20 was impounded.
First, I'd like it give you a summary of the events. Approximately
200 individuals demonstrated during the week of September 18th;
there were a total of 134 arrests; 7 of those arrests were made by
the U.S. Capitol Police. Of those arrested, 114 were DC residents;
12 were Virginia residents, 9 the State of Maryland; 2 the State
of Maine; 2 the State of California; and 1 the State of Pennsylva-
nia; and 1 for the State of Connecticut.
To summarize each day, on September 18, seven persons were
arrested by the U.S. Capitol Police for blocking the roadway in the
Third St. Tunnel. All individuals were charged with incommoding
under the disorderly conduct statute and released after posting the
elected $50.
On Wednesday, September 20, 38 persons were arrested by the
Metropolitan Police Department for blocking the roadway on the
Roosevelt Bridge. They also were charged with incommoding under
the disorderly conduct statute, and released after posting $50.
On Thursday, September 21, 96 persons were arrested and
charged with parading without a permit and released after posting
$50.
Total collateral collected was $6,700, that were deposited in the
city's coffers.
Again, on the September 18 incident, approximately 15 minutes
time was taken in order to effect the arrest and to reopen the Third
St. Tunnel. These arrests were made by the Capitol Police and the
roadway was opened after the arrest and after the removal of sev-
eral heavy wooden boxes that was thrown about the roadway by
the demonstrators.
On September 20, on the Roosevelt Bridge, the actual time from
beginning to end was 1 hour and 10 minutes. At zero — at 8 o'clock
that morning, the demonstration began, and at 8:50, two lanes of
traffic were open. The other two were not open until — officers had
to pick up approximately 90 nails that had been thrown about the
roadway. By 9:10, all lanes were reopened, with a total of 38 ar-
rests— 34 arrests.
Within that 34 arrests, individuals had climbed up on a school
bus, had handcuffed themselves to the desk and chairs, and all of
that material had to be removed from the roadway.
To give you an oversight of the preparation of the Metropolitan
Police Department in handling demonstrations of this size, we like
to go in and develop very carefully prepared plans. Planning easier
when the demonstrator — normally affords less commotion as re-
lates to the demonstrators and the public, which is affected by this.
In the past, Janitors for Justice had cooperated with us, met
with us prior to any organized demonstrations, and fully apprised
us of what their activities were going to be. However, in late Au-
gust, based on a statement made by its leader stating that the city
was not responsive to their demands, that they were going to break
tions.
The information that we had received was that they were about
to start demonstrations on the week of September 18 and carry
them through to the end of the week. They would not meet with
us to discuss what those activities were, or the locations, the num-
ber of people involved, or what type of activities would be involved.
They would only state to us that disruptive activities would occur.
Our response, as in any demonstration within the District of Co-
lumbia, the Special Operations Division comes forth and puts forth
a plan utilizing all Special — Special Operations personnel, as well
as supplemental personnel for the various districts. Officers were
detailed to monitor the bridges throughout the city, to include the
Anacostia Bridge, as well as the Roosevelt Bridge and 14th St.
Bridge.
At 7 o'clock in the morning, a yellow school bus pulled up in
front of their headquarters on K St. Two bus loads were gathered.
They responded to the U.S. Capitol grounds, at which time they
were being followed in its entirety by Metropolitan Police. They re-
sponded to the Capitol, disembarked the bus, and began heading
toward the Third St. Tunnel. Officers were on the — that location
immediately, in which the arrests of seven individuals were made
and the roadway cleared.
The next demonstration that took place was on the 21st, at
which, 11:30 in the morning, two groups left their headquarters
again and began walking through the streets of Washington. Peri-
odically they will reach an intersection and sit down in the middle
of the intersection. Because they had broken up into smaller groups
of five or six groups, our resources were somewhat limited, in
which only one or two officers could follow each group.
This being known to them, they would sit down in traffic. Once
the officer gave a warning for them to cease in their activities, the
demonstrators would then up and move to another location. After
the second warning, and the warning in which arrests would have
occurred, they no longer engaged in that activity.
On the 19th, three buses again left their headquarters about 7:30
a.m. and began driving around the city. They were followed. Offi-
cers were posted on each bridge. And unfortunately, the fourth bus
responded into the city from the Virginia side and immediately
pulled diagonally in front of all four lanes on the Roosevelt Bridge,
at which time approximately 90 demonstrators disembarked from
that bus, with 34 of them sitting on top and in the streets.
At that time, there were two officers on the scene. He imme-
diately called for the assistance of the rest of the units that were
staged in the various parts of the city. They were responding to the
area. One warning was given in which half of the demonstrators
then cleared the roadway and remained on the curb and the other
34 individuals were arrested.
In most cases with the Metropolitan Police Department, as it re-
lates to our handling of demonstrations, we do not issue permits
or allow individuals to engage in parades during the rush hour pe-
riods, whether that be the a.m. or p.m. The Janitors for Justice
knew of this, but yet made it clear to us that they wanted to em-
bark upon the city during those morning and afternoon rush hours.
The warning procedures: Normally we warn demonstrators be-
fore arrest. A decision to warn depends on time and circumstances,
at my discretion. If time and circumstances dictate the warning is
not appropriate, there is no requirement that one be given. And
this particular policy was utilized on the bridge.
As it relates to the laws, current laws and regulations governing
activities associated with demonstrations appear to be adequate.
The fines as relates to incommoding is one of $50.
There is some current review now — review now within the city
government to see whether or not that fine needs to be increased,
and by what effectiveness do we need to move about that.
MPD currently has resources and plans to deal effectively with
demonstrations. The procedures have served us well for many
years and afforded us the flexibilities to adjust to changing cir-
cumstances. The Metropolitan Police can handle any contingency
that may arise from activities of demonstrators.
I'd also just like to say that there was one report that said that
the bus was not impounded. That morning sifter the demonstration,
an officer had to hot-wire the bus, drove the bus to the Brentwood
impoundment lot, and issued it a notice of infraction for parking
on the bridge.
Sir, this concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Soulsby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry D. Soulsby, Chief of Police, Metropolitan
Police Department
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Chief of Po-
Uce Larry D. Soulsby, MetropoUtan PoUce Department. I am here today at the re-
quest of Chairman Tom Davis to address your concerns about the response of the
MetropoUtan Police Department to recent demonstrations by the group known as
"Janitors for Justice." You specifically requested that I address the MetropoUtan Po-
Uce Department's mass arrest policies, the time necessary to respond to the dem-
onstrations, the locations where arrestees lived and whether the bus that the dem-
onstrators used on September 20, 1995 was impounded.
Summary of persons arrested in connection with the various demonstrations Janitors
for Justice held between September 18 and 22, 1995:
Approximately 200 individuals demonstrated.
MetropoUtan PoUce Department arrested 134
54 were males and 80 were females
United States Capitol Police arrested 7 persons
4 were males and 3 were females
No juveniles arrested
Residency of those arrested:
114 District of Columbia
12 Virginia
9 Maryland
2 Maine
2 California
1 Pennsylvania
1 Connecticut
Demonstration of Tuesday, September 18, 1995:
7 persons arrested by U.S. Capitol Police for blocking roadway in Third Street
Tunnel
Charged with "incommoding" under Disorderly Conduct Statue
Released after posting and electing to forfeit $50
Released after posting and electing to forfeit $50
Demonstration of Thursday, September 21, 1995:
96 persons arrested by MPD
Charged with parading without a permit
Released after posting $50 and electing to forfeit
Collateral collected:
$6,700 deposited with D.C. Superior Court for arrests by MPD
RESPONSE TIMES
Demonstration on September 18, 1995:
Approximately 15 minutes to reopen street
US Capitol Police arrested demonstrators
MPD cleared street of heavy wooden boxes
Demonstration on September 20, 1995:
Approximately 1 hour, 10 minutes
0800 demonstration began
0850 two lanes opened
0910 all lanes reopened
MPD arrested 34 persons
some handcuffed to desks and chairs
Removed desks, chairs, cemented tires, nails, a van and a bus from Roosevelt
Bridge
Preparation for Mass Demonstrations
Metropolitan PoUce Department prepared to handle mass demonstrations of all
sizes
developed careftally prepared plans
mobiUze necessary resources to meet most contingencies
Planning easier when demonstrators inform MPD of intentions
Janitors for Justice had been cooperative when planning and organizing dem-
onstrations
Janitors for Justice terminated cooperation in late August 1995
INTELLIGENCE ON JANITORS FOR JUSTICE
Friday, August 25, 1995:
SOD/SEB official attended Teamsters demonstration
Speaker told crowd Janitors for Justice was planning large demonstrations simi-
lar to those which had occurred in March 1995
Information relayed to MPD's Intelligence Branch
Intelligence Division detective met a leader of Janitors for Justice
Leader told detective group was planning "disruptive" activities for Monday, Sep-
tember 18, 1995
Leader said "disruptive" activities would include civil disobedience
Leader declared city had not been listening and all contact with police would be
terminated
Leader stated he would have nothing else to say about activities of organization
MPD RESPONSE
Operational plan implemented
utilization of SOD personnel
supplementation by CDU
Officers detailed to monitor the bridges over Potomac River
Officers stationed at headquarters of group
Officers sent to monitor two chiirches group had used previously as staging areas
MPD RESPONSES TO EACH DEMONSTRATION:
Monday, September 18, 1995:
1. Demonstration at U.S. Capitol
0715 hours — three yeUow school buses pulled up in front of the headquarters at
1213 K Street, NW
11
Buses chartered from Deadwyler Bus Company
Destination — U.S. Capitol grounds
Notification given to U.S. Capitol Police
Buses loaded with approximately 150 demonstrators proceeded towards U.S. Cap-
itol
Demonstrators disembark at First Street and North Carolina Avenue, SE
MPD official made contact with Mr. Jay Hesse, Exec. Dir., Janitors for Justice
Mr. Hesse stated that demonstrators were going to break up into two groups and
march around
He stated that they were not going to engage in acts of civil disobedience
Demonstrators within jurisdiction of the U.S. Capitol
information passed to Capitol Police
Demonstrators marched north in two groups
MPD & US Capitol officers monitoring groups
US Capitol Police traffic officer reported demonstrators at northbound entrance to
Third Street Tunnel
MPD observed seven demonstrators in street
Demonstrators trying to set up heavy wooden boxes in roadway and handcuff*
themselves to boxes
Northbound traffic completely blocked
Capitol Police officials and officers on scene
Decision made to arrest demonstrators without warnings
Caught setting up obstacles
Large group of demonstrators approaching scene
Demonstrators secured in wagon; street cleared and reopened
Operation took no more than fifteen minutes
2. Demonstration through Downtown D.C.
1130 hours — two groups left headquarters at 1213 K Street NW, and marched on
sidewalk
One group headed west on K Street
Groiip was orderly
Stayed on the sidewalk
obeyed pedestrian traffic regulations
Other group proceeded south on 13tn Street
At 13th and G Streets 10 demonstrators sat down in crosswalk
MPD members gave one warning to move or risk arrest
Before warning completed demonstrators got up and began walking south
Call for assistance made
Demonstrators proceeded east on F Street and at the intersection of 12th and F
Street they again sat down.
Second warning given, but again, before warning completed, they got up and
marched north
Additional ERT officers arrived
Demonstrators continued marching; however, they obeyed all traffic rules
Tuesday, September 19, 1995:
0730 hours — three buses arrived at headquarters
Demonstrators transported to different drop-off points around downtown area
Demonstrators engaged in leafleting activities
Demonstrators picked up by buses
Later, one bus and three vans picked up demonstrators and took them to rally
on Capitol grounds
Wednesday, September 20, 1995:
0730 hours — three buses again appeared at group's headquarters
Buses picked up demonstrators and began travelling three different routes
Several motorcycle officers assigned to monitor various bridges, including Roo-
sevelt Bridge, to assist with tracking buses
Demonstrators in fourth bus drove from Virginia and blocked traffic on Roosevelt
Bridge
Demonstrators in other three buses converged on scene
Additional MPD units arrived on scene and gave one warning
Demonstrators cleared roadway
except for 34 in, on, and around bus
34 arrested for incommoding
Bus bore expired Maryland passenger automobile tags
MPD officer issued NOl for parking on bridge
Bus impounded by MPD officer and driven away
Demonstrators entered Metro and surfaced in 900 block of U Street, NW
Demonstrators walked west in westbound lanes of U Street, NW, disrupting traf-
fic
MPD official arrived on scene and observed demonstrators carrying signs and
bullhorns in 1000 block of U Street, NW
Official told demonstrators that they were engaging in an unlawful parade
They were also told to disperse or they would be arrested
Warning was repeated at least one more time
Organizer approached MPD official in 1300 block of U Street, NW
Official told her demonstrators were engaging in an illegal parade and they must
disperse
Demonstrators did not disperse
MPD members directed them on to sidewalk in front of Reeves Center and called
for assistance
Demonstrators were prevented from entering building
Surrounded by officers and arrested for parading without a permit
96 arrested
WARNING PROCEDURES
Normal procedure: warn demonstrators before arrest
Decision to warn depends on time and circvunstances
Field commander has discretion
If time and circumstances dictate that warning is not appropriate, there is no re-
quirement that one be given
ADEQUACY OF LAWS, REGULATIONS AND RESOURCES
Current laws and regulations governing activities associated with demonstrations
are adequate
MPD currently has resources and plans to deal effectively with demonstrations
Procedures have served us well for many years
Provide field commanders with appropriate directions
Afford commanders flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances
MPD can handle any contingencies that may arise from activities of demonstra-
tors
This concludes my statement. I am prepared to answer any questions the Mem-
bers of the Committee may have.
SOD PROCEDURES FOR DEMONSTRATIONS
Special Operations Division has implemented the following policy reference to dem-
onstrations:
Meets with organizers
Obtains information about planned activities
Processes parade permit applications where necessary
Parade permits never issued for rush hours
Identifies organization leaders and where appropriate parade marshals
Arranges resources to escort parade/demonstrators
Plans deplo5Tnent of additional resources where civil disobedience expected:
Identify t5T)e of civil disobedience, time, location and number of participants
Activate sufficient number of MPD personnel to handle event
To insure that innocent persons are not arrested, where time and cir-
cvunstances permit, issue three warnings to demonstrators that illegal activities
within a specified area must cease or arrests will occur
Warnings are timed to be given five minutes, two minutes, and immediately
before arrests begin
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
I was just reading from a Washington Post article, dated April
14, 1995, where one of the protesters said: "When I first started I
was shy, but then it got fun to go out and protest."
13
What has happened here is the justice system in this city has not
responded to the extent that they're capable. It's our understanding
that the fine for incommoding traffic carries a maximum of $250
and 90 days in jail, but the court, not the police department, has
determined that this is a post and forfeit offense. In other words,
the $50 is a bond, not a fine, the people forfeit the bond and no
further action is taken. Is that a correct understanding of the law?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. So changing the fine doesn't necessarily stop it if the
court is going to make a post and forfeit, unless you were to raise
the bond?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. And I understand that in the city, many parking of-
fenses are more than $50. Is that correct?
Mr. Monroe. Some are, yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. I know, because I've been the recipient of some of
them, and I paid in a timely way. But it does not carry with it in
my judgment, the same kind of obstacle to affecting others that
blocking a bridge does. So in looking at these fines, it may be ap-
propriate for the council to review them and for the police depart-
ment to make recommendations. It gets to be ridiculous when of-
fenders are coming up and saying this is fun, I used to be shy, but
it's fun now, and somebody else is paying the $50 fine. Let me ask
just a few questions.
I understand from what you're saying that some of the arrested
people came as far away as California that were blocking the
bridge.
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. So this has become almost a national event by the
time people are coming from many States. Can the U.S. Capitol Po-
lice or the Park Police help you and assist you in situations like
that?
Mr. Monroe. They do. As it relates to the bridge incident, the
U.S. Capitol Police supplied assistance to us in the way of trans-
ports. We had 34 individuals as well as several other — debris that
was thrown about the roadway, that we used their transports as
well as ours to transport the individuals, as well as the debris.
Mr. Davis. We noted that on one of the days the city collected
$6,700 in fines or forfeited bonds. How much did it cost the city?
Mr. Monroe. I do not have that figure, sir.
Mr. Davis. Do you think it would be accurate to say more than
$6,700?
Mr. Monroe. Based on the number of officers that were involved
in it, yes, sir, and that's based on their salary, yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. So every time this happens, or at least in some of the
occasions where this has happened, this has ended up costing the
city money which the city really doesn't have at this point.
Mr. Monroe. I can only state that I know that it was a consider-
able amount of resources that were applied to this particular event.
The dollar amount, I don't have an idea of this, sir.
Mr. Davis. Did the police have advance notice of the traffic-stop-
ping protest on September 20?
Mr. Monroe. We had no advance notice that that was going —
was going to occur, no, sir.
Mr. Monroe. No. We had overtly followed several of their buses
as they would leave their headquarters, but they knew that we
were doing that. They employed other tactics and so forth to try to
elude us.
Mr. Davis. How many officers were involved on the Roosevelt
Bridge, do you remember?
Mr. Monroe. There were approximately 35 officers involved in
that.
Mr. Davis. OK. Were there a total of 134 arrests?
Mr. Monroe. For the entire week. Thirty-four on the bridge;
there were a total of 96 on that Thursday up at 14th and U St.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Is the speed with which the police can deal with an action like
this constrained by personnel shortages or equipment shortages?
Mr. Monroe. No. Basically, as in any arrest, you have to have
an arresting officer that actually physically takes custody of that
individual as far as handcuffing that individual, as far as filling
out the paperwork on that individual arrest, as well as having a
photograph taken with the individual that was arrested. Because
based on mass arrests, we lose people in the system and so forth,
but that picture tells that this officer arrested this particular per-
son, which should they have decided to go to court on these par-
ticular cases, we have clear identification. So it's a time-consuming
process.
Mr. Davis. Sure.
What are your criteria for calling in the Park Police, U.S. Park
Police, or the Capitol Police to get assistance; do you know?
Mr. Monroe. Basically, it's the location of where the event oc-
curred. And based on this event occurring on the Roosevelt Bridge,
which was just adjacent to a park, they naturally came in and as-
sisted us, as well as some of the Virginia authorities came on the
other side of the bridge to assist us in trying to move some of the
traffic through, as we were able to open one lane at a time.
Mr. Davis. OK.
So in a situation like on the Roosevelt Bridge, did you call the
Virginia authorities and the Park Police as soon as it occurred?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Is there any more manpower or other groups that we could bring
into this to get a faster response when this happens?
Mr. Monroe. I think there was an ample number of personnel
available. The system within itself is somewhat slow, yes, and
that's as far as the actual processing.
Mr. Davis. Is there any kind of formal agreement within the lo-
calities. Federal, city, and local, to notify surrounding jurisdictions
or everybody involved when a situation such as September 20 oc-
curs? Do you know of any formal agreements?
Mr. Monroe. Forewarning? No, because in this particular case
we did not know what their activities would entail. Our particular
intelligence unit within the department made contact with dif-
ferent jurisdictions just to find out whether or not they had any in-
formation that they could provide for us as far as what their activi-
15
ties were going to be for that week. So a notification was made in
that manner prior to the event and a notification was made after
the actual event occurred.
Mr. Davis. Was any contemplation given to charging the offend-
ers in this case with stricter penalties in the DC Code, such as
reckless endangerment or disturbing the peace or something that
would carry a higher fine?
Mr. Monroe. No, sir, that consideration was not given.
Mr. Davis. OK.
In the future is there any thought to going with a stricter stand-
ard? The key here is some deterrence so people aren't saying, gee,
this is fun, I used to be shy but this is fun to do now.
Mr. Monroe. We are reviewing all the charges as relates to
those that we normally incur during mass demonstrations, just to
see what their actual effectiveness is. And that's currently being
done now.
Mr. Davis. Have you given any thought to what stricter penalties
in the DC Code or higher bonds might do to make the job of the
police easier in dealing with these traffic protesters, at this point?
Mr. Monroe. It's a two-tier system. We're looking at how it re-
lates to the penalty and also how it would relate to the actual offi-
cer's time that would be spent after that initial process, court time,
things in that nature, and just trjdng to balance the two, sir.
Mr. Davis. So it's being reviewed internally, at this point. What
I'd like to see are some recommendations by MPD to present to
both Congress and the city council in terms of what might assist
the police department so that we don't go through this again.
Mr. Monroe. We're working very expeditiously in reviewing
those plans and hopefully some good, sound recommendations will
come out of that to avoid some of this.
Mr. Davis. Both as a deterrent to stop it happening in the fu-
ture, or the ability to respond as expeditiously as possible if it hap-
pens again,
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. I am one of the last to want to view Federal interven-
tion as the right way to go if the city can handle it, but at this
point, this may be an issue that is bigger than the city^s ability to
handle it, from the way you have described it. It may be the city
needs to address its ordinances or its manpower or work some kind
of agreement with the Federal Government.
We're here to help. We just want to get the job done, as you can
imagine. So as soon as you get that, if you would forward some-
thing to our subcommittee, and we'll work with some of your coun-
cil members who are also keenly concerned about this.
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. And you've noted that many of these people who were
arrested were not even residents of the area, at least from what
you could ascertain?
Mr. Monroe. The majority of them, the 104 of the 134, were DC
residents.
Mr. Davis. I got 114 from DC of the 134. But some were as far
away as California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maine?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Monroe. There were over 200 that were actually involved in
the various demonstrations that week. And their State of residency
was not known.
Mr. Davis. I wonder if we could try without a lot of fanfare to
ascertain what the cost to the city might have been in this case.
This would be helpful to us on Capitol Hill, to see what this cost
the city in fines. I'd like to know what the economics of this is from
the city's perspective. Could you try to get back to us on that?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Davis. That's all the questions I have now.
I will now give the floor to the ranking minority member, Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The demonstrations in which Local 82 participates do not involve
violence, do they?
Mr. Monroe. No, ma'am, they do not.
Ms. Norton. At all times they are peaceful in demonstrating?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. You indicated that there were several different po-
lice units — I mean, sorry, several different kinds of jurisdiction.
The Federal jurisdiction, I believe you indicated the Capitol Police?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Were there any other police jurisdictions involved
besides Metropolitan Police and the Capitol Police?
Mr. Monroe. U.S. Park Police provided assistance as related to
helping to divert traffic on the Park land. Because once you come
across Roosevelt Bridge, it comes right — ^you have a ramp that
comes right down on Ohio Drive, I believe, and they were assisting
us in moving traffic along that artery.
Ms. Norton. Of course, the Park Police have rather broad juris-
diction throughout the District
Mr. Monroe. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. Do they not?
Now, is there any reason why District or Metropolitan Police
would have to do — would have to be involved? I mean, could this
be — ^this is a bridge leading from Virginia, where most of the people
don't come from the District of Columbia. Would there be anything
to keep Federal police from clearing the bridge?
Mr. Monroe. They — I think as it deals with resources and the
actual bridge being within the confines and listed as public road-
way for the District, naturally we have been the ones in the past
that have always handled incidents.
Ms. Norton. Of course, Park Police have a right throughout the
District as well, and you call upon them. And I succeeded in get-
ting a bill passed in this House after considerable difficulty in the
House and the Senate that allows the Capitol Police to go to cover
three times as much territory as they did before.
What I suppose I'm getting at. Inspector, is I don't understand
what the coordinating mechanism is for the police. I understand
this is the District of Columbia. I don't understand why even given
present jurisdiction we could not have a minimum of DC Police and
a maximum of Capitol Police and Park Service Police. The Capitol
17
Police are the largest police force per capita in the United States.
The Park Police have overlapping jurisdiction with the Metropoli-
tan Police. Is there any reason that you are aware of in law where
you all couldn't send you out there and the rest of them be Capitol
Police, Park Police, and the rest, without changing any law that is
now on the books?
Mr. Monroe. There is none, to my knowledge, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. So if we're really interested in getting to the bottom
of this, and we're really interested in whether the District of Co-
lumbia resources are being used, there's something we could do ad-
ministratively. And I would like to — I would like to have a meeting,
frankly, with representatives of the various police departments in
the District and see whether or not some of this overlapping juris-
diction can be put to better use, rather than looking for changes
in law that may be totally unnecessary.
I understand that the Corporation Counsel may be looking at
that possibility. One of the great advantages of the District is that
it does have access to so many police, and I think the chairman is
absolutely right, the District certainly needs £dl of its own police
doing hard-core cleanup of crime.
I must say that I also don't understand what the coordinating
mechanism is generally for the various police forces. And we must
have, conservatively, half a dozen Federal police forces, and there
are really more than that if you look at the special police force for
the Supreme Court, for the Library of Congress. I've never seen so
many different police forces.
I note that Mr. Guiliani in New York wants to — is going in ex-
actly the opposite direction. He wants the housing police and the
school board police to all be working under one jurisdiction, be-
cause it's hard, obviously, to coordinate police.
I want to ask you about coordination. When a call comes for a
matter that is in the jurisdiction of the various police departments,
who gets there first, who puts out the call, and who decides how
many people from what Federal jurisdiction are coming to assist
the Metropolitan Police?
Mr. Monroe. Normally, the territories that normally separate
the various jurisdictions — ^for an example, if an incident were to
occur on the Mall between 3rd and 7th St., once the call came in
to police communications, them knowing that that is Park terri-
tory, the call would not even come into the Metropolitan, it would
go directly to the U.S. Park Police stating that the particular inci-
dent was on their jurisdiction and therefore they would respond.
Ms. Norton. Well, that of course is right on the Mall.
Mr. Monroe. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Now, suppose it was somewhere in the District, like
close to Stanton Park, where, let's say, the Park Police also have
jurisdiction, and a call comes in. Who goes to that spot close to
Stanton?
Mr. Monroe. You would pretty much — ^you would probably have
Metropolitan and Park responding to an incident.
Ms. Norton. So what would really happen is Metropolitan and
Park Police would both send out enough cops to take care of the
situation?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, ma'am.
With the scarcity of resources, it seems to me there ought to be
a better way to decide on how much of the resources will be used.
We've got to make better use of our overlapping resources. This is
not a matter for you in particular, Inspector, but in fact it has in-
creasingly become clear that the kind of coordination that in fact
happens when you get on the scene might best serve the District
and the Federal Government if there were a way for it to take
place before you got on the scene — so that, for example, if I could
give an example, if something occurred close to Stanton Park,
where you have Federal police — ^you have Capitol Police that have
jurisdiction now, you have Park Police that have jurisdiction now,
and you have the Metropolitan Police that have jurisdiction now.
I would like to see a way developed whereby either the Capitol Po-
lice or the Park Police go there first, and say we'd like one Metro-
politan Police person to come, if that's the number you decided
upon.
I'd like to ask you about the use of higher penalties. We all know
that one of the greatest waste of time, often, for our own police, is
sitting in court waiting for their case to come up. This is very dif-
ficult to deal with. And one of the things that the financial author-
ity and the city are looking at are ways to cut down on that.
Now, we have people saying give us overtime, when in fact what
we know is that cops sit, waiting for their number to come up, as
they say in the street, and if it comes up, then they go out into the
street at night and they make overtime. That's why we don't want
to simply say overtime as it exists is what we want, is what we
want to fund. We want to fund efficiency. If, in fact, higher pen-
alties are used, court time then becomes a given, if, for example,
a person has to go to trial, whether it's for summary trial of some
kind, or for a jury trial; is that not the case?
Mr. Monroe. As it relates to the charge, if we had charged them
differently with
Ms. Norton. Let's put it at — suppose you had charged 114 peo-
ple with a charge that they could contest — that would require con-
testing in court if they did not plead guilty.
Mr. Monroe. You would have a considerable amount of resources
that would have to respond to court on various dates in order to
bring that matter to a conclusion.
Ms. Norton. I guess it was the 103d Congress, there were dem-
onstrations every week for a period of time on Statehood. Most of
the time people got in the truck and went away, it wasn't a great
inconvenience, it happened in the middle of the day, people could
take other routes. But three of those, on three occasions they re-
quested, on three occasions they requested jury trials. And there
were three separate jury trials. And on all three occasions, they
were found not guilty. I want to put that in the record, on the ques-
tion of whether or not higher penalties accomplish anything.
Mr. Davis. Without objection, that will go in the record.
I hope I understand correctly that you're not trying to impugn
somehow that if you take these to a jury, that somehow we're going
to be using DC juries to acquit people that are blocking Virginia
commuters when they're in violation of the law.
19
Ms. Norton. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying for whatever
reason the prosecution was not able to convict these people. I be-
lieve that in a demonstration, if you want to know exactly what I'm
saying, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that in a demonstration
where it is often very difficult to get witnesses who will then be
able to make out every element of the offense, is what I am saying.
Mr. Davis. That's why they're taking pictures. That's what's tak-
ing so long, isn't it, in rounding everybody up, is because you're
taking the pictures and trying to put that case together for each
arrestee?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, when we make the arrest, we go in with the
intention of having to present that case to court.
Mr. Davis. Catch-22.
Ms. Norton. Yeah, it is.
And my only point is. Inspector — and I would like to have a
meeting so that I could learn more about this, in a room with the
various police departments and get a better feel for this — my point
is that people who do civil disobedience in order to get arrested are
not easily deterred, but they have a capacity to tie up our re-
sources. That is the whole point.
The point is to tie up our resources and to make the point that
they can do that. These tactics come from — these tactics come from
Gandhi, himself, who says, you know, "fill the jails." So I just want
to make sure that whatever is recommended takes into account the
benefits and the problems associated with — associated with new
revenues.
One more question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Remember that my
witnesses didn't come, so I'm not — I'm taking some of their time,
too.
Mr. Davis. They were invited to come.
I'll permit you one more question.
Ms. Norton. That's right. Well, thank you very much. That's
very kind of you.
I have no witnesses, I want to ask these people questions.
Mr. Davis. Just for the record, you were given a list. We did in-
vite your witnesses.
Ms. Norton. My own statement said that my people didn't come
and I asked them to come. I'm asking for more time to try to get
to — to try to understand
Mr. Davis. Go ahead.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. This issue.
Mr. Davis. I'm being lenient, go ahead.
Ms. Norton. And I asked only for one more question.
Do you recommend that these offenses be Federalized or do you
believe that local DC law and Police Department tactics can move
to deter these sit-ins on the bridge?
Mr. Monroe. I believe with the review that we're conducting
now, that we should be able to come up with something that will
help us, from a law enforcement perspective, to deal with these sit-
uations in a more effective manner.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Inspector Monroe.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. OK, thank you.
make just one clarification.
These situations are a sort of a Catch-22; you want to remove
people quickly so traffic can go on, but it takes a while to move
them and gather information to prove the total case. One way
around that could be to go after the organizing group with a much
higher and stiffer fine, then you would not have to spend so much
time on individuals. Is there consideration being given to that?
Mr. Monroe. I believe that will be something that will be re-
viewed also.
Mr. Davis. OK.
And I understand that there have been some injunctions against
this particular group by private developers that have been, frankly,
pretty effective. So that may be something that we can discuss
when we have the Corporation Counsel here with our next round
of hearings.
Let me 5deld now to the gentleman from Virginia, my colleague,
Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I didn't bring an opening statement, but will have the staff
bring one over and put it in the for the record.
I would like to start out, though, by asking Ms. Norton, by ask-
ing what witnesses you wanted here, Ms. Norton, to complete all
the perspectives on that situation?
Ms. Norton. Well, I asked Justice for Janitors to come. I have
in the past indicated to Justice for Janitors that I thought that
their tactics kept people from even understanding why they were
demonstrating, and that even though this was a hearing on disrup-
tive tactics, it would serve their cause to let people know why they
were demonstrating. They decided not to come.
Mr. MORAN. I agree, that's unfortunate they didn't. It would have
been helpful if they had been here.
And, you know, I agree that the, what would you call, the man-
ual for demonstrating goes way back throughout civilization. Al-
though I think Gandhi, I don't remember him ever disrupting
things, he disrupted things, but he was really protesting unfair
laws and did so obviously in a nonviolent fashion.
But I'm not sure that it wasn't just the authorities that he was —
that were punished by his demonstrations, if you want to use the
word punished by them. They were the people who felt aggrieved,
and rightfully so.
What bothers me about the demonstration on the bridge is that
it is quite different than, I think, both in the degree and the plan-
ning, with many of the demonstrations that may be inconvenient
to people and annoying, but don't cause any major cost or inalter-
able disruption of things. The DC Statehood demonstrations occur
pretty constantly, and yet people generally have a way to avoid it
and I don't think there's any particular harm done.
On this particular demonstration, we disrupted traffic until 11
a.m., as I see in the report from the Police Department. And of the
tens of thousands of people who were inconvenienced, some of them
were undoubtedly needing to get to places more than just to be able
to make it to work by 9 a.m.
21
Certainly, the Teddy Roosevelt Bridge is the bridge that you
would cross if you needed to go to George Washington University
Hospital. If you're going there, there's a good chance that you need
to be there and there's a good chance you need to be there at a par-
ticular time.
We all think that our jobs are important, some are more impor-
tant than others, but some may be necessary. And I think what
this indiscriminate massive disruption, it goes past the point where
an appropriate level of judgment was applied. And so I really
would like to have talked to the people representing Janitors for
Justice, in terms of their responsibility to make their point in a
peaceful, nonviolent, and in a balanced way, that is not irrespon-
sible. I think this may have gone past that point.
On the other hand, we have a responsibility to create discourage-
ments, substantial disincentives to do that. If we become patsies,
we stand back in an apathetic way and allow any type of dem-
onstration, no matter how extreme, to occur, without there being
any reasonable civil punishment, then I think we have to assume
some responsibility as well. So I would be in agreement with what
the Chairman has suggested in terms of increasing the punish-
ment.
And I understand what Ms. Norton has suggested, that we don't
want to do it in such a way that we're the ones who are punishing
ourselves, that we tie up the court system, that never mind, fill up
jails, when we need violent criminals who are a threat to people.
These people are not an immediate threat to anyone.
We don't have the space in our incarceration facilities, and we
don't really have the capacity within our court system. But we've
got to figure out a way to create more of a disincentive, I think,
than a $50 fine, which is fairly easy to meet. And there wasn't even
any confiscation of the vehicles, as I understand.
Mr. Monroe. No, sir; no, sir, the vehicle was
Mr. MORAN. The bus was confiscated? OK.
Well, then that information that was in the newspaper was inac-
curate and it's useful to get that on to the record, if it was con-
fiscated. And I want you to put that on the record.
But I think one thing we ought to consider is, and it is related
to the logistics of putting people through a court system that is al-
ready grossly overburdened, is not only the role of enforcement
with other enforcement agencies, whether it be the Capitol Police,
the Park Police, but also the Virginia State Police, and even the
court system within Virginia, which probably has more capacity
than DC right now to be able to move cases along in a more expedi-
tious manner.
We have an agreement that applies to the Wilson Bridge and I
think the American Legion, the Legion Memorial Bridge, where
Maryland and Virginia have a cooperative agreement, and whoever
responds first or whoever is able to respond, given the existing cir-
cumstance at the time, takes over jurisdiction. And I think that the
arrests can be made by Virginia or Maryland in that case, whoever
responds first.
I wonder if we couldn't have a similar agreement for bridges that
would include the Teddy Roosevelt and the Memorial Bridge, lead-
ing to the Lincoln Memorial, to have a similar tripartite agreement
system, ii its on ine rotomac itiver, it may De appropriate to con-
sider something like that.
Mr. Davis. If the gentleman would yield to let me make an addi-
tion to his suggestion. Perhaps we could fashion legislation in a
very cooperative way that would give jurisdiction to the arresting
authority and the court enforcement authority. In this case, where
commuters are blocked on the bridges, Virginia courts could handle
the trial cases to alleve the District courts of the burden. We may
want to explore that option.
Ms. Norton. If the gentleman would yield, I think this could be
done by a memorandum of understanding. Because I know there
have been in the past. I am not sure about interstate authorities
and I am not sure your legislature needed to do that in order to
have it happen. I know that DC has a memorandum of understand-
ing with the Federal police for certain matters. So I would like to
explore this with both of you.
Mr. Davis. I think that would be very helpful.
Mr. MORAN. We might ask COG, too, who has that group of po-
lice chiefs that work together. I think we would want to ask the
Virginia State Police when they come up to testify what they would
think.
Do you see any problems, it is about time I got around to a ques-
tion, isn't it. Inspector Monroe? Do you see any problems from your
perspective representing the metropolitan police department with
having that type of cooperative agreement?
Mr. Monroe. I would think in a situation like that you would
have to look at the actual law itself and as it relates to, if you are
in DC, can a Virginia officer actually make an arrest for a charge
that is only a District of Columbia charge, whereby if it was a Fed-
eral charge, these jurisdictions — I'm saying that I don't have arrest
powers in the State of Virginia. So you would have to look at the
law changes.
Mr. MORAN. They were on the bridges. Are the bridges consid-
ered entirely DC jurisdiction?
Mr. Monroe. Up to certain points within the bridge, yes, sir.
Mr. MORAN. Were any of the demonstrators beyond that DC de-
marcation point?
Mr. Monroe. Unfortunately not.
Mr. MORAN. So they were conscious probably of how to keep it
within DCs jurisdiction. But we may, as Ms. Norton suggested, it
may even be able to be done by a memorandum of agreement. That
would be terrific if we could pursue that. Apparently, there is no
precedent to that.
Mr. Davis. There is an act in the Virginia code. The staff will
review it. Mr. Moran, we will work with your staff, Ms. Norton and
mine, and the Council of Government's.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you. Inspector Monroe. I appreciate it. We
know what a tough job you have, too. Thanks for taking the time
and testifying.
Mr. Davis. I am now pleased to call our next distinguished panel
to testify. Captain Donald P. Garrett of the Virginia Department
of State Police, 7th division headquarters; Mr. Ronald Kosh, the
23
general manager of AAA-Potomac; Ms. Emily Vetter, president of
the Hotel Association of the District of Columbia; and Mr. Steve
Eldridge, acting director of Metro Traffic Control.
I am very proud of the fine job done by our Virginia State Police
in protecting the general public. The AAA-Potomac represents over
726,000 local members, including my family, in the District of Co-
lumbia, Northern Virginia, and suburban Maryland.
Tourism is the largest private sector employer in the District,
providing much needed revenue for the Nation's capital, and I hope
an increasing part of revenue in the years to come with the build-
ing of the arena and convention center. The hotel industry is a key
component of that employment mix.
Traffic reporters have become vital communication links in most
urban areas for the millions of Americans who live in the suburbs
but work in the city. I don't believe that they are any more impor-
tant than in any region of the country than here. I am pleased Mr.
Eldridge is here at our request.
As you know, it is the policy of this committee that all witnesses
be sworn before they testify. Would you please raise your right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Davis. We will carefully review any written statements you
care to present. But please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes
each in accordance with the rules. We will start with Mr. Garrett.
STATEMENTS OF CAPTAIN DONALD P. GARRETT, VIRGINIA DE-
PARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, 7TH DIVISION; RONALD W.
KOSH, GENERAL MANAGER, AAA-POTOMAC; EMILY VETTER,
PRESIDENT, HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA; STEVE ELDRIDGE, ACTING DIRECTOR, METRO
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Garrett. CJood afternoon. My name is Donald P. Garrett
and I am the Division Commander for the Virginia State Police, Di-
vision 7 office located in Fairfax on Braddock Road. Division 7 en-
compasses the counties of Fairfax, Arlington, Prince William, and
Loudoun Counties and the various cities and towns within. I was
asked to join you here this afternoon to offer my observations, and
share my concerns with reference to bridge and roadblockages in
DC that affect commuters in Northern Virginia.
Having served the public in this region for the past 19 years,
since 1976, I am well aware of the difficulties and frustrations of
Virginia motorists and what they face each morning and afternoon
as they attempt their daily commutes. According to the Virginia
Department of Transportation, there are 226,000 motorists that
drive across the 14th Street Bridge into the District each morning.
The Interstate 95/395 corridor is the heaviest traveled section of
interstate in the entire Commonwealth of Virginia, largely due to
these commuters.
I have watched this region grow, the road networks expand, and
the economic status flourish. However, I have also seen the nega-
tive aspect of the increased traffic on our interstates. With the high
volume of traffic on highways in Northern Virginia, motorists' tem-
pers flare easier than they once did. Angry, frustrated drivers have
led to increased aggressive driving behaviors, such as following too
delay.
The Virginia State Police is actively involved with our neighbors
in Maryland as well as all Northern Virginia localities, such as
Fairfax and Arlington Counties to try to stem problems caused by
congestion. We have an incident management plan that we use
when unforeseen congestion arises from accidents, disabled vehi-
cles, and even roadway failure. This plan was adopted in 1988 as
we recognized the need for better communication among our re-
spective agencies so that the roadways could be opened quicker.
For each minute that a lane is blocked, 4 minutes of traffic delay
results. So, for example, a 7-minute fender bender causes almost a
half-hour of backup.
On an average day in Northern Virginia, our interstate will expe-
rience at least 5 to 10 disabled motorists or accidents that will re-
sult in lane blockages. That is why, when asked to discuss the dif-
ficulties that Northern Virginians experience when roads are
blocked in the District of Columbia, I would like to offer my agen-
cy's assistance in any way necessary.
On September 20, there was a janitorial workers' protest in the
District that brought traffic to a standstill for commuters on Inter-
state 66 eastbound. Normally, because of the success of the HOV-
2 program, this roadway does not present as much congestion as
others do. However, on September 20, an estimated 100,000 motor-
ists were trapped on Interstate 66, Routes 50 and 110, and the
George Washington Parkway. Other vital interstate arteries were
clogged as well. The protest resulted in an additional 4 miles of
backup on Interstate 395, for example.
I understand that about 34 persons were arrested and each paid
a $50 fine. However, I believe that the cost to Virginia's commuters
was undoubtedly greater than that. Consider the man-hours lost
from jobs, possible flights that were missed, as was mentioned ear-
lier, the ability to get to medical care, and the other aspects that
could result in a hostile business climate for the entire region. Vir-
ginians and innocent commuters do not deserve to be punished
every time a group of people decide to protest and seek publicity
for their causes. While we recognize and appreciate an individual's
right to protest, this does not include interfering with the rights of
others to get to work.
Blocking the transportation system should not be tolerated by
any State or locality in our region. It is too vital to the our health
as a region.
On behalf of the Virginia Department of State Police, I offer any
assistance that we may render to the District of Columbia in solv-
ing this serious problem. Currently, while we do have a compact
to clear disabled vehicles from bridges leading to DC and Mary-
land, there is no agreement regarding the issue of road and bridge
blockages due to protests. With protests and marches continuing to
be a form of expression in our region, I believe that a plan should
be adopted addressing better liaison with the District and sur-
rounding localities. This plan would stress the importance of notify-
ing agencies of potential problems in their jurisdictions.
25
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon and
look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garrett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Captain Donald P. Garrett, Virginia Department of
State Police, 7th Division
Good morning. My name is Captain Donald P. Garrett and I am the Division com-
mander for the Virginia State PoUce Division Seven office in Fairfax. Division seven
encompasses the Counties of Fairfax, Arhngton, Prince WiUiam, and Loudoun, and
the various cities and towns within. I was asked to join you here this morning to
offer my observations and to share my concerns with reference to bridge and road
blockages in D.C. that effect commuters in Northern Virginia.
Having served the pubUc in this region for 19 years, since 1976, I am well aware
of the difficulties and frustrations Virginia motorists face each morning as they at-
tempt their daily commutes. According to the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation, there are 226,000 motorists that drive across the 14th Street Bridge into the
District each morning. The Interstate 95/395 corridor is the heaviest travailed sec-
tion of the interstate in the entire Commonwealth, largely due to these commuters.
I have watched this region grow, the road networks expand, and the economic sta-
tus floxuish. However, I have also seen the negative aspect of the increased traffic
on our interstates. With the high volume of traffic on the highways in Northern Vir-
ginia, motorists tempers flair easier than they once did. Angry, frustrated drivers
have led to increased aggressive driving behaviors such as following to closely,
speeding, and using highway shoulders unlawfully. These behaviors bring about
more accidents resiilting in more traffic delay. The Virginia State Police is actively
involved with our neighbors in Maryland as well as all Northern Virginia localities
such as Fairfax and Arhngton Counties to try to stem problems such as congestion.
We have an incident management plan that we use when unforeseen congestion
arises from accidents, disabled vehicles, and even roadway failure. This plan was
adopted in 1988 as we recognized the need for better communication among our re-
spective agencies so that the roadways could be opened quicker. For each minute
that a lane is blocked, four minutes of traffic delay results. So, for example, a seven
minute fender bender would cause almost a half hour of back-up.
On an average day in Northern Virginia, our interstate will experience at least
five to ten disabled motorists or accidents that wiU result in lane blockages. That
is why, when asked to discuss the difficulties that Northern Virginians experience
when roads are blocked in D.C, I would like to offer my agency's assistance in any
way necessary.
On September 20, there was a janitorial protest in the District that brought traf-
fic to a standstill for commuters on Interstate 66 Eastbound. Normally because of
the success of HOV-2, this roadway does not present as much congestion as others
do. However an estimated 100,000 motorists were trapped on 1-66, Routes 50 and
110 and the George Washington Parkway. Other vital interstate arteries were
clogged as well. The protest resulted in an additional four miles of backup on the
Interstate 395, for example. I understand that 34 persons were arrested and each
paid a $50.00 fine. However, I beUeve that the cost of Virginia's commuters was un-
doubtedly greater than that. Consider the man-hours lost from jobs; flights possibly
missed, and other aspects that could resvdt in a hostile business climate in our re-
gion. Virginians and innocent commuters do not deserve to be punished every time
a group of people decide to protest and seek publicly for their causes. While we ap-
preciate an individuals right to protest, this does not include interfering with the
rights of others to get to work.
Blocking the transportation system should not be tolerated by any state or locality
in our region. It is to vital to our health as a region.
On behalf of the Virginia State Department of Pohce, I offer any assistance we
may render to the District of Columbia in solving this serious problem. Currently,
while we have a compact to clear disabled vehicles from bridges leading to D.C. and
Maryland, there is no agreement regarding the issue of road and bridge blockages
due to protests. With protests and/or marches continuing to be a form of expression
in our region, I believe that a plan should be adopted addressing better liaison with
the District and surrounding locaUties. This plan would stress the importance of no-
tifying agencies of potential problems in their jurisdictions.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns with you this morning. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
ters or a million local residents wno are members oi AAA-Fotomac,
nearly one in three commuters, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the demonstrations which intentionally and illegally
blocked traffic into the District of Columbia, causing major disrup-
tions to our region's commuters.
First, let me say that having served the District of Columbia
since 1915, AAA-Potomac has a major stake in the well-being of
our community. Our public service activities benefit our citizens
and neighborhoods, including sponsorship of over 32,000 local safe-
ty patrols. With 75,000 members in the District and many, many
more who visit and work in the District on a daily basis, we are
committed to the prosperity and future of the District and its resi-
dents.
Second, I'd like to stress that as a long-time community public
service organization, we ardently believe in and support our fun-
damental rights of assembly and free speech. But demonstrations
must be carried out legally and must respect and not trample on
other citizens' rights, including that of free passage.
Tactics that constitute "transportation terrorism" are willfully il-
legal, recklessly dangerous, and utterly selfish. Moreover, they
greatly disrespect and wantonly infringe upon the rights of hun-
dreds of thousands of commuters. Ominously, blocking traffic to
draw attention to causes, regardless of merit, is a tactic that is be-
coming commonplace as it has been used more than a dozen times
locally in the past year.
As recent events amply demonstrated, our transportation system
locally is very fragile. We have the second worst congestion in the
Nation and the second largest average commute time. Disruptions
of major transportation facilities like the Roosevelt Bridge bring
our transportation network to a standstill because all other routes
already operate beyond capacity and therefore there is no extra ca-
pacity to pick up the slack. Speaking regionally, such irresponsible
traffic blockages have significantly negative impact on our quality
of life as well as our safety. They further and unfairly reinforce the
District's unfortunate but growing reputation as an unpleasant
place to work, live, or visit.
I'd like to offer a snapshot summary of the enormous impact that
that event had and underline the necessity of deterring such hit
and runs on the region's more than 2 million commuters.
The Roosevelt alone carries 25,000 commuters every rush hour
morning, and the blockage greatly afiiected every inside-the-beltway
Potomac crossing, which sdtogether carry conservatively over
135,000 and as many as 200,000 plus as the Virginia Department
of Transportation has more recently estimated into the District
each morning. The event started just before 8 a.m. When finally
cleared, its residual effects lasted until 11 a.m. Therefore, the dem-
onstration conservatively affected in excess of 100,000 commuters.
Obviously, commuters were delayed in greatly differing amounts
of time. But for the purpose of measuring an approximate economic
impact, let me conservatively posit that the average delay was 20
minutes. I suspect your constituents found that they were consider-
ably delayed more than that.
27
Also, let me assert that the average hourly compensation, includ-
ing benefits, is no less than $15 an hour. Therefore, you can as-
sume that that protest alone sapped no less than half a million dol-
lars of productivity from the District's already ailing economy. And
that doesn't take into consideration the cascading events on the
other side of the river.
The Roosevelt Bridge stunt impugned the professional reputa-
tions of those commuters and their employers. Through no fault of
their own, they were forced to explain to their employers and their
customers, why they were as much as 2 hours late. While most
were likely understanding, AAA-Potomac has heard from some
members whose paychecks were docked.
Further, congestion is a leading cause for crashes and fatalities
on local highways. When traffic is brought to a sudden and unex-
pected halt, motorists experience fender benders or worse. They
must ultimately pay for the repair for those and, henceforth, pay
higher insurance premiums. Those costs also weren't taken into
consideration.
But even far more important, our public safety is needlessly and
irresponsibly placed at risk by such stunts. Transportation terror- ~
ism threatens our well-being by recklessly delaying emergency
services, such as police, ambulances, and fire and rescue vehicles,
for which precious seconds can mean the difference between life
and death.
It is clear that the current legal deterrent is inadequate. The
District's statute is limited in the penalty that it can impose. Even
if maximally enforced, those penalties are far less stringent than
those in Virginia and Maryland. In Virginia, the fine is as high as
$2,500 and confinement for as much as 12 months, or both. In
Maryland, it's $500.
On behalf of our 773,000 local members, we urge a thorough ex-
amination of whether the existing District law is being applied ade-
quately and whether it is sufficient. We very much appreciate this
committee's active interest in leadership on the issue. As recently
as yesterday, we have had discussions with Chairman Harry
Thomas, councilmember, whose committee is public works, and we
believe that that is where the process ought to start, with council
addressing the matter adequately and swiftly. If not then, we urge
your intercession in effecting a meaningful deterrent.
In sum, I'd like to express our appreciation to you. Chairman
Davis, and for this committee's leadership for the thoughtless ac-
tions that disabuse the District's reputation as an attractive place_
to visit and work. We also look forward to helping you ensure the
free passage of commuters into and through the District of Colum-
bia.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kosh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald W. Kosh, General Manager, AAA-Potomac
On behalf of nearly three-quarters of a million local resident who are AAA Poto-
mac Members — nearly one in three commuters — thank you for the opportunity to
discuss recent demonstrations which intentionally and illegally blocked traffic into
the District of Columbia, causing major disruptions to our region's commuters.
First, let me say that having served the District of Columbia since 1915, AAA Po-
tomac has a major stake in the well-being of our community and we perform a
members in the District and many, many more who visit and work in D.C. on a
daily basis, we are committed to the prosperity and future of the District and its
residents.
Second, I'd like to stress that as a long-time community, public-service organiza-
tion, we ardently believe in our fundamental rights of assembly and free speech. We
regard these rights as critical linchpins to a democratic society. But demonstrations
must be carried out legally and must respect and not trample on other citizens'
rights, including that of free passage.
Tactics that constitute "transportation terrorism" are willfully illegal, recklessly
dangerous, and utterly selfish — moreover they greatly disrespect and wantonly in-
fringe upon the rights of hundreds of thousands of commuters. Ominously, blocking
traffic to draw attention to causes, regardless of merit, is a tactic that's becoming
commonplace as it has been used more than a dozen times in the past year.
As a recent events amply demonstrated, our transportation system is very fragile.
We have the second worst congestion in the nation and the second longest average
commute time. Disruptions of major transportation facilities Uke the Roosevelt
Bridge bring our transportation network to a standstill because all other routes al-
ready operate at or beyond capacity and therefore have no extra capacity to pick
up the slack. Speaking regionally, such irresponsible and intentional traffic
blockages have significant negative impact on our quality of life as well as our safe-
ty. Such actions nirther and unfairly reinforce the District's unfortunate but grow-
ing reputation as a unpleasant place to live, work, or visit.
I'd Uke to offer a snapshot summary of the enormous impact of September 20th's
event which will underline the necessity of deterring such "hit and runs" on the re-
gion's more than two million commuters.
• The Roosevelt Bridge alone carries 25,000 commuter every rush-hour morning
(6:30-9:30 a.m.), and the blockage greatly affected every inside-the-Beltway Potomac
crossing, which altogether carry 137,000 commuters into the District each morning.
The event started just before 8:00 a.m., at the heart of rush hour.
• While finally cleared at just after 9:00 a.m., its residual effects lasted untU 11
a.m.
• Thus, the demonstration affected likely in excess of 100,000 commuters.
• Obviously, commuters were delayed in greatly differing amounts of time. But
for the purpose of measuring an approximate economic impact, let me conservatively
posit that the average delay was 20 minutes. Again conservatively, let me assert
an average hourly compensation, including benefits, of $15 an hour. Therefore, you
can conservatively assume that this single protest alone sapped no less than half
a irfillion dollars of productivity from the District's already aiUng economy.
• .The Roosevelt Bridge stunt impugned the professional reputations of these
100,000 commuters and their employers. Through no fault of their own, they were
forced to explain to their employers and customers why they were as much as two
hours late. While most were likely understanding, AAA Potomac has heard from
some members whose paychecks were docked.
• Further, congestion is a leading causes for crashes and fatalities on local high-
ways. Without warning across Northern Virginia, high-speed highway traffic was
brought to a sudden and unexpected halt. Motorists experience "fender-bender"
crashes — or worse — when confi-onted with such traffic disruptions, for which they
must repair and henceforth pay higher insurance premiums.
• But even far more important, our pubUc safety is needlessly and irresponsibly
placed at risk by such stunts. Transportation terrorism threatens our will being by
recklessly delaying emergency services, such as police, ambulances and fire/rescue
vehicles, for which precious seconds can mean the difference between life and death.
It's time we treat traffic terrorism for what it is. Such action is grossly reckless
and irresponsible, and should not be tolerated as simply business as usual.
Unfortunately, it's clear that the District's current legal deterrent is inadequate.
The District's statute for "obstructing or incommoding the free use of a roadway
carries a maximum penalty of $250 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or
both. We are dismayed that the District has merely imposed upon the perpetrators
a minimal fine of $50 and dismissal of charges.
The District's penalties — even if maximally enforced — are far less stringent than
those in neighboring Virginia and Maryland. Those convicted of "obstructing free
passage of others" in Virginia face a fine of as high as $2,500, confinement in jail
for as long as 12 months, or both. In Maryland, "willfully obstructing or hinder the
fi-ee passage of persons passing along or by any public street or highway" carries
a maximum fine of $500, 30 days imprisonment, or both.
29
On behalf of our 773,000 local members, we urge a thorough examination of
whether the existing District law is being applied adequately, as well as whether
increasing penalties for this crime should be effected. We very much appreciate this
committee's active interest and leadership on this issue. Currently, we are urging
the Council of the District of Columbia to enact a sufficient legislative remedy, hav-
ing discussed the concern with Councilmember Harry Thomas, chairman of the
Council's Public Works Committee. However, should the Council not address this
matter adequately and/or swiftly, we would then urge your intercession in effecting
a meaningful deterrent.
In sum, I'd like to express our appreciation to you. Chairman Davis, for this Com-
mittee's leadership and your appreciation for how such thoughtless actions events
disabuse the District's reputation as an attractive place to visit and work. We look
forward to helping you ensure the free passage of commuters into and through the
District of Columbia. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Vetter.
Ms. Vetter. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, and
Mr. Moran. My name is Emily Vetter. I am president of the Hotel
Association of Washington. Our organization represents 78 hotels
within the District of Columbia and 72 allied members through the
metropolitan Washington area.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today concerning
the organization called Justice for Janitors. Our industry, the hos-
pitality industry, had an unfortunate experience with the Service
Employees International Union, Local 82, in May of this year.
I will preface discussing this incident by making a statement. I
know the subcommittee is well aware that the hospitality industry
is the largest private sector economy in the District of Columbia.
If spite of all our best efforts to promote the Nation's capital as the
finest place to hold conventions, meetings, and visit as a leisure
traveler, we have unique obstacles. I would like to refer you to an
article in last Tuesdays Washington Post Business Section, which
accurate highlights how difficult it is for us to sell our city when
we are the most publicized city in the country, when we are under-
going a financial crisis, and when there is the perception that noth-
ing works in the Nation's capital.
It is for this reason that we are aggressive boosters of our city
and work hard with groups who may wish to deter visitors for their
own purpose. I cite the police union, which a year ago threatened
to tell visitors not to come to Washington because it was unsafe.
We were able to reason with the police union who understood that
it was to no one's advantage to deter visitors to Washington as the
effect would be less tax dollars collected and more District resi-
dents out of work.
Unfortunately, we were not given this same opportunity to rea-
son with the SEIU. In late May when our industry and the city's
committee to promote Washington was spending several hundred
thousand dollars to try and lure visitors during the slow months
of July and August, the SEIU local sent a two-page fax to 5,000
travel agents in the southeast of the United States telling them
now is not the time to make that trip to DC and Washington, DC,
is out of control, visitors beware.
The scurrilous nature of this outrageous document, and there is
a copy, we call it the "rat fax," included in your package, was very
damaging to our city and our industry's already tainted image. As
you can see, phrases were taken totally out of context and state-
ments were made that were simply untrue and absurd.
out. We never heard from Mr. Sweeney.
We did, however, contact our Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Union Local 25 to see if they knew of this effort by SEIU. Local
25 did not know, and to their credit they joined with us in sending
a letter signed by both the hotel industry and the hotel and res-
taurant workers' union to each one of those 5,000 travel agents
telling them that the SEIU fax was untrue and this was a great
time to visit their Nation's capital.
This entire activity by SEIU made no sense. First, they are not
trying to organize hotels or restaurants or any other aspect of the
hospitality industry. We are covered by Locals 25 and 32.
Second, by attempting to cripple an industry and a city's revenue
stream, what have you accomplished by layoffs and diminished rev-
enues for the District of Columbia?
Third, our response faxes to 5,000 travel agents was not inexpen-
sive. This money could have been much better spent on promoting
our city instead of having to defend it.
Finally, hotel occupancy, a bellwether of visitor activity, was not
very good in July and August was the worst August in close to 20
years.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is to the eco-
nomic benefit of all of us if this city is visited and enjoyed by many.
It is for that reason that you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee
approve legislation to begin to build a new convention center and
an arena. A healthy District of Columbia is the goal of all of us.
Justice for Janitors capitalized on the already poor press the city
receives nationally and internationally and for what purpose? It
was economic terrorism, if you will, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to testify on
this unfortunate incident. We present it in the hope that this will
not happen again. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vetter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Emily Vetter, PREsroENT, Hotel Assocl^tion of the
District of Columbia
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia. My name is Emily Vetter, and I am president of the Hotel Association
of Washington D.C. Our organization represents 78 hotels within the District of Co-
lumbia and 72 allied members thoughout the metropolitan Washington area.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today concerning the organization
Justice for Janitors. Our industry, the hospitality industry, had an unfortunate ex-
perience with the Service Employees International Union, Local 82, in May of this
year.
I will preface discussing this incident by making a statement. I know the sub-
committee is well aware that the hospitality industry is the largest private sector
economy in the District of Columbia. In spite of all our best efforts to promote the
Nation's Capitol as the finest place to hold conventions, meetings, and visit as a lei-
sure traveler, we have unique obstacles. I would like to refer you to an article in
last Tuesdays "Washington Post" Business Section, which accurately highlights how
difficult it is to sell our city when we are the most publicized city in the country,
when we are undergoing a financial crisis and when there is the perception that
"nothing works" in the Nation's Capitol.
It is for this reason that we are aggressive boosters of our city and work hard
with groups who may wish to deter visitors for their own purpose. I cite the police
union which a year ago threatened to tell visitors not to come to Washington be-
31
cause it was not safe. We were able to reason with the police union who understood
that it was to no one's advantage to deter visitors from Washington as the effect
would be less tax dollars collect and more District workers out of work.
Unfortunately we are not given this same opportunity to reason with the SEIU.
In late May, when our industry and the city's Committee To Promote Washington
was spending several hundred thousand dollars to try and lure visitors during the
slow months of July and August, the SEIU sent a two page fax to 5000 travel agents
in the southeast of the United States telUng them, "Now is not the time to make
that trip to D.C.", and, "Washington D.C. is out of control, visitor's beware!"
The scurrilous nature of this outrageous document, a copy of which is also at-
tached to this testimony, was very damaging to our city and our industry's tainted
image. As you can see, phrases were taken out of context and statements were made
that were simply untrue and absurd.
Needless to say, we contacted Mr. John Sweeney, the head of SEIU, and insisted
they cease and desist from sending these faxes out. We never heard from Mr.
Sweeney.
We did, however, contact our Hotel and Restaurant Employees's Union, Local 25,
to see if they knew of this effort by SEIU. Local 25 did not know and to their credit
they joined with us in sending a letter signed by both the hotel industry and hotel
and restaurant worker's union local to each one of those 5,000 travel agents telling
them that the SEIU fax was untrue and that this was a great time to visit their
Nation's Capitol.
This entire activity made by SEIU made no sense.
First, they are not able to organize hotels, or restaurants or any other aspect of
the hospitality industry. We are covered by Locals 25 and 32.
Second, by attempting to cripple an industry, and a city's revenue system, what
have you accomplished by layoffs and diminished revenue for the District of Colum-
bia?
Third, our response faxes to 5,000 travel agents was not inexpensive. This money
could have been much better spent on promoting our city, instead of having to de-
fend it.
And finally, hotel occupancy, a bellweather activity of visitor activity, was not
very good in July and August was the worst August in many, many years.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is to the economic benefit of all
of us if this city is visited and enjoyed by many of your constituents and guests from
overseas. It is for that reason that you Mr. Chairman and this committee approved
the legalization to begin to build a new convention center and arena. A healthy Dis-
trict of Columbia is the goal of all of us in this room.
"Justice for Janitor's" capitalized on the already poor press this city receives na-
tionally and internationally. And for what purpose?
Again that you for allowing us the opportunity to testify on this unfortunate inci-
dent. We present it in the hope that this will not happen again.
('fl^^po'^' ^ Restaurant Employees
Local 25, ML^io
June, 1995
Dear Travel Industry Colleague:
Several weeks ago, you received a "Travel Alert" leaflet from a Local 82 of the Service
Employees International Union telling you that "Now is Not the Time to Make That Trip
to Washington."
We are writing to tell you that virtually nothing in that fax was true. Now is a great time
to make that visit to Washington!
The District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital, has five police agencies and more police
officers per capita than any other city in the country. In fact, crime is down 11% this
year over last year.
While it is true that our city is experiencing a financial crisis, comparable to those faced
by New York, Cleveland, and Orange County, California, safety and public health
services are being maintained. Our METRO bus and rail system is the cleanest and
safest in the country. Our streets, and parks are well maintained. Our neighborhoods
are full of shops, restaurants, theaters and museums for every visitor's taste. And
Washington has more "history in the making" and more free world class museums than
any city in our country.
Nearly 20 million people visit Washington, DC each year. We want you and your clients
to know that our city is better prepared than ever to offer a fun and rewarding visit.
Sincerely
Ron Richardson
Secretary /Treasurer
Hotel & Restaurant
Employees, Local 25
Washington, DC
iA^^^-W^ ^^, //.
Emily Vetter
President
Hotel Association
of Washington, DC
Daniel Mobley
President
Washington, DC
Convention &
Visitors Association
33
Out for a 'Spjn^ to Boost D.C, Tourism
Industry Treats Travel Writers to a Tour
Dy Anthony Fuob
■ Washuigton's $7 bd-
30 [ounsm industry.
image IS everything.
The problem is that. t>
<Uy. the image o( the rutun's
capita] is far from rosy, lounsm
experts say. Prospective tourists
in the past year have been fed
SEUid betes and oevs stones on
the OistiKl's Oscal cnss, shoot-
mgs in fnvit of the While House
and potitjcians o( every stnpe raJ-
tng against big government. s>tq-
boli2ed by the QpiiaL "No doubt
Washington lost soroe tounsts be-
cause at It." said New Yortt image
speoalist Howard J. RubenMrm.
"Some pcQpie saw those rcpurts
and deoded n might be bettei to
suy away this year.*
Though figures are not yet
zvailaUe for 1995. tounsn offi-
cab predjd that the area's visitor
count will be fbt this year. And
with unsavory memories of vis»-
tor declines (oUowmg the Dis-
tnct's "murder capital' tag in
1991. they are worrwd about bt-
ture prospects.
So officials came up with a de-
S«cTOinuSM.DlXCoLl
The news» along with a host of other factors, has
played a role in the District's changing tourism tide:
Hosts Hope Junketed Writers
Put in a Good Word for D.C.
TOURlfiBLFnaDI
ddedTy Washingtaa solutioQ: spin doc-
toring.
Tha past vvdcend. a ooosortium cd
area tounsm busnesses invested near-
ly $35,000 on its single bluest eflort
evcf to generate good press.
Twcnty-cight free-lance and staff
writers representmg lutionaJ maga-
zines and daily newspapers^-mduding
the New Yorit Daily Ncw^ San Antonio
Express News, Family drdc and the
Ladies fiome Journal— were 6ovn to
Washington and in a whirlwind 48
bour^ were showo the capttai at its
besL The vintnf and dining induded a
Cuban banquet at the National Air and
Space Mifieum. penonaJ lour^ of the
Lxnoobi Theater and Uvisb diimers at
fashwnabie Dtstnci restaurants.
The aim was strajgbtforwaitL Cea-
eraLe good wJJ — and good press.
The Washington DC. Convention
and Visitors Association (WCVA).
which receives iu finding portly brxn
the Distjici's Iwd bed tAi and partly
from membership (ces pati by local
businesses, spent $5^00 oo the tups.
The rest of the lab was pidced up by
tourisn-rclaled busnesses. wtoch pro-
vided hoteJ rooms, meab and the like.
"We believe then is a dtmX coneU-
tjoo between the enage of the aty and
kistire tourism.' said Mane Tibor.
WCVA vice president. This year.
we've (jeeo hit with a bundi of negative
stories related to our budget crisis. Of
course, that's not (firecUy related to
tourism, but it portrays Washingtoo in
a bad bgbt . . . Tourists tnay equate
that bad press along with other reports
as a reason not to coote to Washing-
Experts say there are countless oth-
er (actors besides image that contrib-
ute to tourism — such as the relative
eupcnse of a city, its attractjons and the
ease of getting there
Bui onage — partmiarly as it re-
lates to safety and crime — remains a
huge factor. In Ftorida, for oomple.
the rnurrJers of seven lourisis in 1993
contributed to the state's wrxst tourist
count u) two decades. And District
tourism tenders need only remember
1991. when the mudwtported cnme
rate n the nation's capital led the num-
ber of tourists to drop to 18 J milboo —
the lowest level in sot years.
Tounsm destinations— especially
those expenenang «silor downturns-
have used aU-cjcpcose paid mcdu tours
for year^ as a tool to combat bad press.
In recent years, the number of publica-
CioQS allowtng their writers to accept
free lours has dedirted. though a targe
pod of viCmg parucipaots remains.
But media tours akne cannot fix an
image problem, experts say.
"You can't expect a press tour, even
a big press tour, to be a cure-aQ for a
bad image." said Rubenstein, a consut-
lani hiTBd by Dade County. FTa., and
New York Gty to bdp imprtive their
ixoage with tourists. Among other
events, Rubenstein organoed tounsm
summt^ that brought together civic.
governmental and business interests,
and taundwd massive pubbaty cam-
paigns to combat the negatrve impress-
■Washington. even more than cities
tike New York and Paris, is in the news
aO ihe time." he continued. "You can't
beg-n ;o :04itJot the overall image those
thousands of stories create about
Washington . . . But. that said, press
tours Ute the one Washington just did
can at least help in getting the city's
side of the story ouL'
The VTP treatment this weekend ap-
peared to work. A majority ct the jour-
nalists caid they interxled to rcturti to
their respective publications to write
favorable tales on the lighter side of the
"There are two Washingtons.' said
Gtoria Hayes Krcmcr, a longtime free-
lance writer and former Kxught-Rjdder
travel columnist. "There is the Wash-
ington of histor>- — the monuments, the
statues, and the museums. Then there
is the modem Washington, of crime.
ajxJ of potitjcs that people have become
dtflfluaioned with.*
1 befieve that tourists can make the
distiDction between two.* she said.
N^
"'^!0 om u! uofidmsiQ puB
uo!Sua± Buisiu SdsneQ sisuq lepuBuij BumufjuoQ
aaoidi-iiiBiiiaHBiiii
01 auiii oqi ION S| mon
Service Employees International Union. Local 82
1213 K St. NW 3rd Floor
Washington D.C. 20005
-mmmfsr-
35
Mr. Davis. Mr. Eldridge, thank you for being here.
Mr. Eldridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, and Mr.
Moran. I do not have a prepared statement.
Metro networks provide traffic reports to over 40 radio and tele-
vision stations in Washington in the context of 30- and 60-second
reports. Our sympathies are certainly with the commuters. We are
concerned with the increasing level of sophistication of these lane
blockages.
The incident on the Roosevelt Bridge occurred just inside the
District line but before the exits that would have enabled police to
route traffic around the problem. In fact, Park Police had to also
close the ramp from the southbound G.W. Parkway that would take
you inbound on the Roosevelt Bridge. Unfortunately, from there,
there is not much option for commuters. The next best option is the
14th Street Bridge, which is already overloaded at this time of the
morning.
We are equally concerned with the process of removals of inci-
dents like this which have already been addressed, but there seems
to be a lack of impetus on the part of both the Metropolitan Police
Department and DC Public Works to clear what are classified as
commuter roadways. I would point to two recent examples.
This morning, southbound lanes of DC Route 295, also known as
Kenilworth Avenue, below Eastern Avenue, which is within the
District, high standing water from the rains the night before. Two
of the three lanes were blocked on this very important roadway,
until 8:30 this morning. Police officers were on the scene but they
were not able to clear the roadway. The impact was felt on the B/
W Parkway, on Kenilworth Avenue, and on the John Hanson High-
way. In addition to that. New York Avenue, the lights were mal-
functioning at West Virginia; Montana, they were flashing red.
This was not dealt with at all during the rush hour.
So I think that we're dealing with a specific incident that — but
also perhaps an overall problem of resolving problems related to
commuters coming in from both Maryland and Virginia.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
The Chair will start with the questioning. Let me start with Mr.
Garrett.
The range of penalties available in Virginia to deal with traffic
stopping protests I think was brought out by Mr. Kosh. They are
considerably higher; are they not?
Mr. Garrett. The penalties and offenses range from traffic in-
fractions all the way through a Class 1 misdemeanor and in this
particular instance that we are talking about, could have included
a Class 5 felony if any individual happened to be armed.
Mr. Davis. Is a bus considered armed in a case like this?
Mr. Garrett. I don't think so.
Mr. Davis. With some people.
Mr. Garrett. Monetarily and as far as jail time is concerned,
penalties range from as low as $10 for a traffic infraction, which
would be stopping a vehicle on the highway in this instance, up
through a $2,500 fine which is the maximum monetary fine for a
Class 1 misdemeanor.
Mr. Davis. $2,500.
lllLFlXl/XiS.
Mr. Davis. Is there any kind of fine to get at the underlying or-
ganizers of the union organization that would plan something like
this without permits and notification of the police?
Mr. Garrett. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Davis. Just curious.
Does anybody have anything to add on the penal?
Mr. Kosh, you noted that the penalties in Virginia and Maryland
were higher?
Mr. KoSH. I don't. We are going to look at it, review it. As I men-
tioned, we did address it with Councilmember Thomas yesterday
and he's going to take a look at what can be done from their stand-
point and have encouraged him to do so.
Mr. Davis. I also say to my colleague from the State Police De-
partment, that you are expressing a willingness to work with the
District of Columbia and other metro area police and other law en-
forcement officers to try to work out some agreement with this, so
we can be more efficient about it and perhaps look at things to-
gether; is that correct?
Mr. Garrett. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Kosh, has the AAA compiled a record of com-
plaints arising from the traffic stoppage? Did you get any calls in
particular from your members?
Mr. KoSH. We have. Because of the multiple locations we have,
we are attempting to compile what those numbers are right now.
But some of them take into account more than a negative com-
ment. But we have had some direct contacts from calls, what are
we going to do about it, what's being done about it, because of the
obvious. I suspect you heard probably from at least as many of
your constituents or more than we have.
Mr. Davis. I heard from a number of constituents. None of them
had anything nice to say about the organizing group at this point.
They were not mincing their words or trying to say, well, they are
just protesting and they are following Gandhi. They were very
upset because it was directed at them, it was affecting their lives,
their ability to earn a living and the like.
Mr. KoSH. That's the nature of the comments we've had.
Mr. Davis. I want to ask a question. AAA is national in scope.
I wonder if you have anything in your library of what other juris-
dictions might have done in these cases or if you have an oppor-
tunity if you could share that information with us?
Mr. KoSH. Be more than happy to do it. In fact, our Foundation
for Traffic Safety, I believe they have done some research into it.
More than happy to even take a look at commissioning some stud-
ies to see if, indeed, there are other jurisdictions out there that
have taken other actions to address the problem.
Mr. Davis. I won't even go on the other effects on drivers who
are sitting there on empty, sitting in traffic for an hour, who have
small kids with them, may experience physical discomfort, not have
restroom facilities and those kinds of issues. But we have heard
specific complaints on those issues, too.
Mr. KoSH. It's hard enough under the best of circumstances to
get around in the area. In fact, we deal with it on a daily basis in
37
trying to render service to the members. On a blue bird day like
today, if you will, we're having to render road service out there in
excess of 1,500, 2,000 times a day and most of that is compressed
into the rush hour.
As I mentioned when it is under the best of circumstances, it's
not an easy thing to do. It is very difficult for vehicles to get
around. And obviously the public safety vehicles themselves have
an extraordinary interest in preserving the public well-being.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Vetter, let me ask a question. I saw that in re-
sponse to the rat sheet that was sent out by the SEIU that you
compiled, along with the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local
25, a response letter to send, that you faxed across the country and
sent across, the letter which tells me that this group is really a
renegade group within organized labor, that at this point they don't
appear to have support from some of their fellow members. Do you
think that is correct?
Ms. Vetter. I've been led to believe that many of the local
unions do provide local support to Justice for Janitors. However, in
this instance I can tell you that our union knew nothing about it,
was horrified it had taken place, was quite angry, and that's why
they volunteered to cosign the letter with us.
Mr. Davis. Let me ask a question. These kinds of continuing
media coverage of these incidents clearly don't help the tourism in-
dustry, the hotel and restaurant industry in general. Would it be
your judgment that this ends up costing jobs?
Ms. Vetter. Absolutely. Because particularly in our business,
you're very susceptible to visitation. The result is when visitation
drops, you have layoffs. So if industry, for instance, I had men-
tioned that we had the worst August in almost 20 years, business
dropped over 11 percent, this August over last August. I can't give
you the exact number but I can tell you quite a few people were
laid off in August, no doubt about it.
Mr. Davis. Is it possible that these individuals are generally not
high-income people?
Ms. Vetter. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. In many cases these are people at the lower end of
the economic scale who get laid off.
Ms. Vetter. Particularly in unionized hotels. In most hotels, it's
done by seniority. These are the — usually the last hired in entry-
level positions.
Mr. Davis. To some extent their firings are attributable to these
actions by these raucous groups.
Ms. Vetter. That's why we found this absurd. Because this was
really affecting sister union individuals who are at the low end of
the spectrum as the people the/re trying to unionize are.
Mr. Davis. My colleague from the District of Columbia made a
very compelling opening statement, not all of which I am in agree-
ment with but a substantial part in terms of the thrust, that is,
that many of the civil rights actions and protests were directed at
governmental authorities and not innocent victims. In this particu-
lar case, a number of people who share many of the goals of the
group that's protesting are punished. You are chasing away would-
be allies. This appears to be one of those cases, particularly with
your local unions.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Eldridge, thank you very much for being here. I
wanted to ask if you had any video or audio tape of these inci-
dents?
Mr. Eldridge. I beheve that we may be able to come up with
some videotape.
Mr. Davis. We would be really interested if you find you could
furnish that.
Mr. Eldridge. Several of our affiliates were down there with
camera crews, and the Virginia Department of Transportation cam-
eras were there as well. I am becoming increasing convinced that
that was one of the reasons why this location was chosen.
Mr. Davis. Maybe if you get the cameras down there quicker,
they will disperse quicker.
Did you notice motorists leaving their vehicles or congregating or
walking around?
Mr. Eldridge. We had reports of numbers of people on the
bridge itself walking around. The people that were on the parkway
still had some hope of getting beyond the bridge, but the people
that were on the Roosevelt Bridge, until they were physically
turned around and put on to 110 had no place to go.
Mr. Davis. Is that how they did it, actually turned the vehicles
around and sent them the other way?
Mr. Eldridge. Correct.
Mr. Davis. Of any of you, any reports of weapons found on any-
body or any fights breaking out?
Mr. Garrett. Not that we're aware of.
Mr. Davis. Anyone see anything?
OK.
What was the effect on other arteries? Clearly this artery was
blocked and some of you mentioned in your statement that when
one artery is clogged, many times traffic will go to others and there
will be congestion there. Any comment on that or in these particu-
lar incidents?
Mr. Garrett. We had considerable traffic rerouted onto Route
110 because we were attempting to do our best in alleviating the
traffic problem as you approach the bridge and had directed as
much traffic as possible onto Route 110 which went on attempting
to get onto Interstate 395.
When the vehicles reached that area, we then had the additional
problem of blockage there because of the overwhelming number of
vehicles approaching the bridge. And we had blockage of at least
4 miles back into Virginia.
Mr. Davis. These are potentially volatile situations where people
are in a hurry to make an important engagement of some kind. It
could be for dialysis at a hospital or to get their kids checked or
for a job interview, and all of a sudden you are in an uncontrolled
situation. In these instances do you feel this is a potential situation
where fights could occur? This will be my last question before I
yield to Ms. Norton.
Mr. Garrett. We received no reports of any brandishing of fire-
arms or fights, or that type of thing. But certainly those types of
events are potential and we do have on occasion reports of bran-
dishing of firearms or actually firing at other vehicles with fire-
39
arms. That comes from many, many causes, but certainly could be
caused by frustration.
Mr. Davis. Let me yield to my colleague from the District.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Captain Garrett, do you know whether the agreement that Mr.
Moran spoke of between Maryland and Virginia is a matter of law
or is it simply an understanding between the Maryland and Vir-
ginia police?
Mr. Garrett. Several years ago, the Virginia State Police, Mary-
land State Police, and District of Columbia authorities were gath-
ered or met to discuss the problem of blockage on the various
bridges crossing the Potomac River. We came to an agreement: the
District of Columbia government, the State of Maryland legisla-
ture, and the Virginia legislature passed what is known as the Po-
tomac River Bridge Towing Compact. It is my understanding that
this is not a statute per se but a compact.
As a side comment, that relates to something that was men-
tioned a little bit earlier, this particular compact does not apply to
violations of the law, et cetera. It applies to removal of disabled or
abandoned vehicles from, let's say, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge or
the Memorial Bridge and so forth. The adjoining jurisdictions, such
as the Maryland State Police and Virginia State Police have Jthe
authority to go on a bridge and push or have a wrecker remove a
vehicle from that bridge to the other side simply to clear the road-
way. Once it gets in the other jurisdiction, off the bridge, then the
other authorities or other State police agency handles it.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Kosh and Mr. Eldridge, how long does it take you to learn
of a disruption, let's say after it begins?
Mr. KoSH. In our case? It depends on the location it would be in.
But we wouldn't be necessarily notified immediately unless we hap-
pened to be trying to render service in a particular area. Then it
would come in typically by radio communications from one of our
service vehicles.
Ms. Norton. So you depend upon your service vehicles to learn
about it?
Mr. Kosh. We don't monitor traffic. There are other organiza-
tions, entities, like Metro Traffic Control and others that monitor
it on a daily basis. Obviously, the highway departments have their
own equipment. But we don't do it on a daily basis.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Eldridge.
Mr. Eldridge. My best recollection of that particular morning is
that we had actually gotten some advance notice that something
was going to happen at the bridge. I believe that it came from an
affiliate. It was probably 20 minutes before 8, which would have
been about half an hour before the actual event started. So we
were already watching the area. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has a camera specifically for the Roosevelt Bridge,
and so we were already primed for something happening there.
Ms. Norton. How did they get piled up that much, given the fact
that you had some warning? Is there any capacity to direct traffic
away from that point quickly?
Mr. Eldridge. The ability to direct traffic away from that would
have been a major undertaking. It would have involved detouring
ail me iraiiic coming in on do onto iiu wnicn, quite iranKiy, is not
a route of choice for traffic that's trying to get into the northwest
part of town.
Ms. Norton. It is a better choice than being stuck behind thou-
sands of cars, or hundreds of cars.
Mr. Eldridge. Indeed. Indeed. And from our perspective, we
could only give indication that there was perhaps something hap-
pening, you might want to avoid the area, that sort of thing, but
it wasn't until it actually happened that we realized the nature and
how severe it was going to be.
Ms. Norton. Captain Garrett, what kind of "batman" are you?
Is there a capacity to deploy officers immediately, to try to warn
people that if they continue, that they will be caught in traffic for
hours?
Mr. Garrett. Our best defense is a good offense, so to speak. If
we know ahead of time something is going to happen, we can cer-
tainly notify the commuting public through the news media. In this
particular instance on September 20, we had no idea that this was
happening and did not know until the traffic management system
notified us of the event as a result of monitoring their cameras.
When we responded, we had approximately two troopers and a su-
pervisor. That was the first notification that we had. We really
didn't know what was going on.
Ms. Norton. But once you find it out, what capacity have you
to reroute or to at least warn motorists that something terrible lies
up ahead?
Mr. Garrett. We work in conjunction with the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation. At various intervals up and down the
interstate system, 395, 66, there are variable message signs which
can be controlled by the traffic management system and messages
can be formulated and posted which would notify the commuters
as to a delay or roadblockage at a certain location. We can certainly
use that information.
In addition, both the Virginia State Police and the Virginia De-
partment of Transportation have public information officers who
are very cognizant of the problems and can get on the telephone
and immediately begin to notify local news media as well as tele-
vision and print media.
Ms. Norton. Do you think that that happened as rapidly as it
could have happened in the case of the last bridge blockage?
Mr. Garrett. I don't quite understand your question.
Ms. Norton. You indicated that there is communication in place
and that you in fact have a way to let people know. Yet in fact this
was a massive tie-up. What I am asking you is do you think that
the present operation allows you to notify people as quickly as your
capacity might otherwise allow?
Mr. Garrett. I believe that it does. You need to really under-
stand that there is a huge volume of traffic that travels on both
roadways and it can block very quickly and back up for a consider-
able distance in a very short time.
Ms. Norton. I notice in your testimony you indicated the need
to develop a plan, across jurisdictional boundaries, for this crime,
and I welcome that and I think that the whole notion of commu-
nication and how rapid it could be, and I recognize what you are
41
saying, it would be very difficult, cars go only 60 miles an hour. I
would hope a plan would try to address that.
I would like to ask a final question of Ms. Vetter. I had indicated
that Justice for Janitors are people that I respect and my friends,
and that I have myself indicated to them that I part company with
them on these tactics and they have always received that well,
even though they haven't changed their tactics.
I did not know before your testimony of the communication with
Local 25. I wonder if you know whether the unions, those two
unions, following the counter fax or the letter that was sent out,
you and your union, whether the two unions have in fact commu-
nicated? Because normally unions have a notion of solidarity. You
don't hurt a brother or a sister.
Now, do you know whether this simply happened between you
and the union or have you asked the union, Local 25, to begin dis-
cussions with Local 82?
Ms. Vetter. We did, Ms. Norton. Immediately Ron Richardson
from Local 25 called Josh Williams from the Central Labor Council
and was angry because he didn't know about it. I haven't — after we
went through several weeks of getting all the names of 5,000 travel
agents on a tape, which is what had been used by SEIU, we
haven't talked since the letter went out, which took us about 2 or
3 weeks to get out. I haven't followed up with him on it, but I know
he did talk to Josh Williams and he did talk to Local 82.
Ms. Norton. I think it would be helpful to have some commu-
nication between the unions so that one union wasn't put in the po-
sition of having to countermand what another union had set in mo-
tion.
I have to say, I just saw this rat fax, or whatever it was called.
I do believe that Local 82 is engaging in inconsistent tactics. On
the one hand, it is picketing in order to get more taxes for the Dis-
trict of Columbia. That is understandable. Many of its members
work and live in the District of Columbia. But at the same time,
it sends out a fax which defames my city and I will never, ever con-
done defaming this city or saying that you should not come to this
city or that it is out of control. It is not out of control. And you can't
ask people to pay more taxes when you say people who will provide
the money that allows people to pay more taxes shouldn't come to
this city.
So I just want to right here and now indicate that if I get up on
the House floor and say to Members of Congress, I will take you
on if you defame my city, I want to say right here, I will take any-
body on that sends a fax that says that the city is out of control
or to say that you shouldn't come to this city. These are my friends,
but this simply must be said. That there is a limit to how you
should proceed.
I would like myself to get Local 25 and Local 82 in a room so
that solidarity can mean something and we can all be working off
the same page and won't be hurting the very city we all love.
May I ask, Ms. Vetter, if you have been in touch with the city
council?
Ms. Vetter. The city council got in touch with us because Local
82 sent copies of these to all members of the city council.
Ms. JNORTON. 1 tniriK tnat mere is a way to i tninK seme inis.
I think one of the things we are deaUng with here is a lack of com-
munication among all the interested parties. Just as I welcome
Captain Garrett's willingness to sit down with members of our own
police department and the Federal police here, I would also like to
encourage and will myself take affirmative action to encourage
members of Local 82 and Local 25 to sit together, not because Local
82 doesn't have a right to use tactics that are germane to its cause
but because I really do believe that at this time in the city's history
and when it is on its knees that we can all agree upon tactics that
don't injure one another and don't injure the city.
I thank you all for appearing today.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton. I now recognize
my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. I thank you. Chairman Davis.
I would like to observe that DC bashing that does go on these
days is not coming from outside the city generally and in fact I
think it is obvious that those who represent suburban areas in the
metropolitan Washington area are not engaging in what has been
considered to be DC bashing. But if that kind of constructive sup-
port is to continue, then these kinds of disruptions can't continue.
In other words, it is very difficult to represent people who would
be caught up in a 3-hour traffic jam and not say unkind things
about the District of Columbia.
Granted this had nothing to do with the DC government. But
there is no question the point that you are raising, Ms. Norton, is
that it is not conducive to our overall objectives of enhancing the
reputation and the economic vitality of the District of Columbia,
and I am sure that there are real estate agents, particularly com-
mercial real estate agents, who will make note of the fact that peo-
ple who might choose to purchase an office building in Northern
Vi;;ginia or suburban Maryland would have the advantage of never
having to worry about that kind of 3-hour traffic jam hitting them
in the morning. This is just the reality.
To the extent that we are addressing the folks who perpetrated
this, I think it might be useful for them to consider, because as Ms.
Norton says, it is wholly inconsistent with their overall objectives
if we are to believe what we read to be their objectives.
I would like to ask Captain Garrett, if we had a memorandum
of agreement where anything happened on a bridge that the Vir-
ginia authorities would be able to respond, there are Maryland
bridges that connect with DC, I guess over by Anacostia, well, no,
that is all DC. Maybe it only applies to Virginia. Maybe we only
need to look at an agreement with Virginia on the Teddy Roosevelt
and Memorial Bridge. But if that were to occur, would you respond
to such a situation? And if you had the ability to make arrests and
to incarcerate, where would these people go?
Give us a little scenario, if you would. Captain Garrett, of what
might have occurred had we had such a memorandum of agree-
ment in place?
Mr. Garrett. For your benefit, the jurisdictional line is at the
high watermark on the south side of the Potomac River. A small
portion of the bridge may be in Virginia, but almost all of it is
within the District of Columbia jurisdiction, or in Maryland.
43
If we responded, it would be good for you to understand that our
resources are limited. I have two troopers routinely assigned to
Interstate 66 between the Roosevelt Bridge and the beltway on
Interstate 66. I have two to three troopers assigned to Interstate
395 between the 14th Street Bridge and the beltway. That is four
to five troopers. We usually have a sergeant, as well, who is re-
sponsible for their activities.
We would respond immediately and begin to do what we could
do, if you're tallong about a small group, three or four people, eas-
ily, we could probably handle that fairly quickly. If you're talking
about a larger group, 30, 40, 50, 60 people, we would have to call
in manpower from elsewhere if we were acting alone from as far
away as even Prince William or Loudoun, depending upon the size
of the group.
Mr. MORAN. Then if I could intervene, Captain Garrett, you are
telling us you don't have the resources to implement a memoran-
dum of agreement that would apply to demonstrations such as the
Justice for Janitors demonstration where you had 200 people in-
volved?
Mr. Garrett. We do not. If you want the bridge cleared quickly
and efficiently. We certainly can assist other authorities if we have
the authority.
Mr. MoRAN. Is there precedent or would it be appropriate for
local jurisdictions to get involved in a situation like that? For ex-
ample, the Arlington police department?
Mr. Garrett. Certainly. The Arlington County Police Depart-
ment assists the Virginia State Police on the interstates quite fre-
quently now simply because of what I explained a moment ago, our
limited manpower. They would very likely respond as well. As to
the number of officers that they could provide, I am unable to even
guess. They should be able to provide 5 or 10 officers within a brief
time.
Mr. MORAN. They would have vehicles like the paddy wagons?
Mr. Garrett. That's correct.
Mr. MoRAN. Then they would take them to the Arlington jail
generally?
Mr. Garrett. If we're in the Arlington jurisdiction, yes.
Mr. MORAN. Do you cooperate with the Park Police in a situation
like that? Would that be the standard procedure?
Mr. Garrett. We have no problem cooperating with any police
agency.
Mr. MORAN. I understand that. But I am just thinking about the
normal way things occur. Do you think it would be appropriate for
the Park Police to respond in a situation like that simultaneously
with State police?
Mr. Garrett. Certainly.
Mr. MORAN. So you might have three different police agencies,
the State police, the local Arlington County police if it was the
Teddy Roosevelt Bridge, and I guess that would apply to the Me-
morial Bridge as well, of course, and you would have the Park Po-
lice, all three.
So in total you are talking about probably two dozen police offi-
cers who might be available if all three agencies responded simul-
taneously?
ginia State Police do not patrol any of the roadways other than
interstates. So the other bridges that are not connected to the
interstates in Northern Virginia. We would not routinely be associ-
ated with, unless we are called by the local jurisdiction to assist
them. Then we act as an assisting agency.
Mr. MORAN. But is 1-66 considered an interstate?
Mr. Garrett. Yes.
Mr. MoRAN. So the Teddy Roosevelt Bridge clearly would be
within your jurisdiction?
Mr. Garrett. Yes, on the Virginia side of the Potomac River.
Mr. MORAN. The Memorial Bridge, that would not be the case?
Mr. Garrett. No.
Mr. MORAN. I see. That's helpful to understand.
And if the Virginia State Police were to make arrests, what
would have been the punishment in that situation, the likely deter-
mination?
Mr, Garrett. If we arrived on a scene such as that, and there
were protesters, the first thing we do — would be to advise them
that they were obstructing free passage of others. And if they did
not move, we would then declare the situation an unlawful assem-
bly and advise them to move, which actually only takes a minute
or two. If they did not move, then we would begin arrests and
physically remove the people from the bridge.
For a Class I misdemeanor, unlawful assembly is a Class I mis-
demeanor, the penalty can range from no fine to $2,500, or for in-
carceration in jail for up to 12 months.
Mr. MoRAN. Well, I heard your response to Chairman Davis, but
I'm wondering, what do you think would — do you think that they
would be fined $1,250? Is that what you're telling us, that they
might be fined and jailed for up to 6 months? Somehow I think that
might be a little excessive.
Mr. Garrett. Just speaking from my personal opinion, I suspect
that would be true, that's a little excessive. That type of punish-
ment is entirely up to the court, which as you know, the police au-
thorities have no control over. And usually a fine or jail term is as-
sessed at the time of trial.
Mr. MORAN. But it would be more than $50?
Mr. Garrett. I can't say that. It would range from nothing to
$2,500, or jail time from nothing to 12 months, at the discretion of
the court.
Mr. MoRAN. So the maximum is 2,500 and 12 months?
Mr. Garrett. That's correct.
Mr. MORAN. And it could be anything in-between?
Mr. Garrett. That's correct.
Mr. Moran. I see. That's helpful to know.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I did want to address one discrep-
ancy here, and maybe you cleared that up earlier.
On all the information we've been given, it says that of the 200
demonstrators, 34 were arrested, but for one place, which was the
testimony of the Acting Police Chief Soulsby, and his testimony,
and I think that was corroborated by Detective Monroe, Inspector
Monroe, it was — I don't know what the difference is between in-
spector and detective, but inspector is probably higher, so I didn't
45
mean to be insulting. But in his testimony, it says 134. So there's
a discrepancy of 134. If they arrested 134 of 200, that was pretty
impressive — but the other stuff says 34.
Mr. Davis. One is a weekly number, the other is a daily number.
Mr. MORAN. Oh, I'm told by Cedric here, who always knows the
facts, that that was actually over a week's time, 134. So there were
an additional 100 picked up in other demonstrations, 34 at that
particular demonstration that involved 200 people. I see. OK.
Well, again, I thank you for having this hearing. I think we will
all want to follow-up. The information has been helpful.
And something I can say more to the Hotel Association, they
made their point, and we appreciate Metro Traffic Control for being
on the job. That information that Metro Traffic Control had, it
seems to me, is an indication, Mr. Chairman, that there was the
ability to notify other police agencies in a timely manner, and be-
fore the demonstration actually occurred, if they had the resources.
And so the next question is, are they going to have adequate re-
sources? They would have had some.
I only mention one other thing. I was caught in that traffic my-
self, and I can relate to this situation. I had a very important
speech to give and it took me an hour and a half to get into the
District. So it — I would like to contribute to addressing this issue
in a timely and decisive manner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Moran, thank you very much for being here
today.
If there's no objection, all material submitted to this subcommit-
tee will be included in the record.
At this point in the hearing, I had hoped to call a representative
of Local 82 of the Service Employees International Union, the
group responsible for the deliberate traffic disruptions that are the
subject of this hearing. In my letter, I advised them of the particu-
lars and wrote as follows: "You are invited to testify on your cam-
paign of traffic disruption in the District of Columbia. Specifically,
your testimony should explain the objective of this campaign, its
consequences and impacts on the Federal Government and the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and your intentions to continue or discontinue
such activities."
Last night, I received a letter in response to my invitation from
Mr. Jay Hessey, the executive director of Local 82, and Mr. Hessey
explained that he was unavailable to appear today, though no ex-
planation is given, and further writes: "Justice for Janitors has re-
cently presented to the Control Board our proposals for solving the
District's financial crisis."
[The information referred to follows:]
Local 82, Service Employees International Union,
Washington, DC, October 5, 1995.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Davis: Thank you for inviting me to testify, before the Sub-
committee on the District of Columbia.
I am unavailable to testify on Friday, and therefere wiU not be able to attend the
hearing. However, Justice for Janitors has recently presented to the District of Co-
cial crisis. We have been assured by the Control Board staff that these proposals
are receiving serious consideration and we are encouraged that our efforts to high-
light the need for revenue based solutions to the District's budget crisis are now re-
ceiving official attention.
Sincerely,
Jay Hessey,
Executive Director.
Mr. Davis. Apparently, Mr. Hessey believes that since he has
talked to the Control Board staff about the District's budget, that
somehow substitutes for sworn public testimony in the campaign of
deliberate traffic disruption. This is not only unacceptable, I believe
it's deliberately disrespectful. An organization which claims to have
legitimate grievances should have welcomed the opportunity to ap-
pear and air its point of view in a proper forum. Refusal to do so
can only cast doubt on the rationality of their argument.
In this country, we have many and varied appropriate means of
expressing a point of view. It's simply not necessary to resort to ex-
treme, radical and dangerously illegal means. Society will not and
cannot tolerate such deviation from constitutional norms.
Congress has a very specific charge in this regard from the Con-
stitution of being responsible for its own operation and the District
of Columbia, our Nation's Capital. Such authority is especially
clear where, as here, there is a direct threat to the health and safe-
ty of working people and visitors who depend on the transportation
network of the Nation's Capital.
As chairman of this subcommittee, I'll continue to explore issues
raised by the testimony heard and the documentary evidence that
has been submitted to date. This exploration will include various
options at our disposal to obtain cooperation from those whom we
believe may have important information that would be helpful to
Congress and the people we represent.
I will now enter into the record the briefing memo distributed to
the subcommittee members and the attachments.
[The information referred to follows:]
Briefing Memo for Justice for Janitors Hearing
Justice for Janitors is a ten year-old nation wide campaign conducted by the Serv-
ice Employees International Union (AFL-CIO). The campaign employs aggressive,
confrontational tactics including targeting the homes of prominent individuals, dis-
ruption of local government meetings, and disruption of normal traffic patterns. Jus-
tice for Janitors has two main goals. First, they want to unionize workers at the
bottom of the economic ladder. In this respect they have enjoyed considerable suc-
cess. Their membership has grown from 625,000 members in 1980 to 1.1 mUhon
members today. Approximately 50% of the members are women and 33% are mi-
norities. The second goal involves them in municipal politics. Because their mem-
bers are dependant on a wide range of municipal services, they are strongly opposed
to any reductions in municipal budgets. Justice for Janitors has been particularly
active in the local political life of Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Washington, DC.
The national union is headed by John Sweeny. Currently, Mr. Sweeny is running
for presidency of the AFL-CIO. His campaign is centered on devoting a greater per-
centage of the AFL-CIO's resources to union organizing. The election is in late Octo-
ber. Mr. Jay Hessey is the leader of local 82 in Washington, DC.
Local 82 of the Service Employees International Union which serves Washington,
DC, has aggressively used the same range of tactics employed by the national orga-
nization. At various times the Justice for Janitors movement has targeted individual
business and political leaders, interrupted official government meetings (including
the DC City Council and the House of Representatives), picketed local businesses,
and blocked key traffic intersections. The traffic blockage and the interruption of a
47
House session clearly impede the orderly functioning of the Federal government.
Several press accounts of their activities are attached.
The purpose of this hearing to elicit information about the impact of the Justice
for Janitor's movement on the orderly functioning of the Federal government and
public and private sectors in Washington, DC. In particular, the committee is inter-
ested in their disruption of the orderly flow of traffic.
Roosevelt Bridge Blocked in Protest of D.C. Budget; Justice for Janitors
Brings Morning Commute to Standstill
september 21, 1995, washington post
[By Marianne Kyriakos]
Protesters blocked the eastbound lanes of the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial
Bridge yesterday morning, shutting down the bridge and clogging mayor routes into
the District for thousands of Northern Virginia commuters for several hours.
The protesters — members of the Justice for Janitors campaign who said they were
demonstrating against proposed cuts in the District budget — caused traffic backups
for several miles on roadways west of the District, authorities said.
Virginia State Police spokeswoman Lucy Caldwell said the George Washington
Memorial Parkway, Interstate 66 and Routes 50 and 110 "were basically a parking
lot. . . . The residual effects lasted until about 11 a.m. — it just brought traffic to
a standstill."
Traffic on the four bridges that carry 137,000 commuters daily from Virginia to
the District — the Memorial, 14th Street, Key and Roosevelt — was either stopped or
moving only a few feet an hour, said John Undeland, a spokesman for the local
American Automobile Association.
"It's safe to say that more than 100,000 people had their commutes disrupted by
the stunt," Undeland said. "It's transportation terrorism, pure and simple. We are
really concerned about this. We have seen more than a dozen of these incidents in
the past year."
Yesterday's event began at 8 a.m., when members of the Service Employees Inter-
national Union's Justice for Janitors campaign parked a large yellow school bus
across the eastbound lanes of the bridge to protest D.C. budget cuts that affect chil-
dren. Protesters set up a "classroom" in the middle lanes of the bridge, with desks,
chairs and blackboards.
Dozens of exasperated passengers — including Health and Human Services Sec-
retary Donna B. Shalala — abandoned car pools on the Roosevelt Bridge to walk into
the District. Others lined up to make calls from the car telephones of frustrated fel-
low commuters.
"We feel that this little disruption is nothing compared with the major disruption
the D.C. budget is going to have on working families and their kids," protester
Deborah Dion said of the union, which represents 5,000 workers in the city.
Thirty-four of about 250 demonstrators were arrested, said Capt. Michael
Radzilowaki, of the D.C. police Special Operations Division. Radzilowaki said such
incidents are difficult — if not impossible — to prevent. "The problem is, you never
know exactly what's going to happen."
Justice for Janitors has staged a campaign for higher pay for the workers who
clean the cit/s offif'e buildings at night and has focused much of its activity on real
estate developer Oliver Carr.
The group has disrupted a D.C. Council meeting and blocked traffic before, includ-
ing once on the 14th Street bridge during rush hour.
Yesterdays protest was cleared at 9:10 a.m. — too late to spare the jangled nerves
of commuters. John Wu, a computer specialist at the Department of Health and
Human Services, said he briefly considered stopping Shalala as she walked past his
car to a vehicle waiting on the D.C. side of the Roosevelt Bridge. "I was going to
say, 'Excuse me, I'm going to be late,' " Wu said. But "she doesn't know me."
At least one driver blocked by the school bus feared the worst as it slowed down
and turned sharply to obstruct several lanes of traffic.
"I thought, 'Oh, my God, let's not have some sort of terrorist activity here,'" said
John Sly, a State Department employee whose car had been following the bus.
"When they start blocking bridges off like this, people get really nervous."
They Heroes or Hooligans?
april 14, 1995, washington post
[By Mary Ann French]
They are mostly women, strong and fit, wearing jeans and flat shoes. They are
laborers, union members. Maybe the/re even the makings of a movement. They are
Justice for Janitors, and they re out to change the world. They not only want higher
wages and better benefits for the workers who clean the city's office buildings at
night — they want peace for the people and headaches for the higher-ups.
Their hooting and hollering have disrupted a D.C. Council meeting. They've
stopped traffic time and again with their demonstrations — including once last
month on the 14th Street Bridge, during rush hour. Last night the janitors were
out again, hand-delivering their own proposal to solve the District's budget crisis to
Council member Harold Brazil at his Capitol Hill home. They^ve prompted a busi-
ness columnist at this newspaper to call them "bush league" for "raising a ruckus"
in front of a real estate developer's home.
One of them, Lisa Fithian, tried to get House Speaker Newt Gingrich's goat by
yelling down to him fi-om a visitors' gallery in the Capitol, right aft;er the morning
prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. "Hey Newt, if you want to save D.C, tax Oliver
Carr," she screameof. She was escorted away, however, before she got a chance to
explain the connection she sees between the two.
Washington native Dania Herring, who quit her job as a janitor to organize full
time, gets arrested frequently at demonstrations for workers' rights. "The union was
always a shoulder or a hand or something to fall back on," she says. "But without
the union, you're nothing."
Whether we think the people who fight for Justice for Janitors are heroes or hooH-
gans, they've got our attention. And when they decide to act, the region usually
watches.
"I like the fact that they get under our skin," WAMU-FM political analyst Mark
Plotkin says of the janitors' group, which is attached to the Service Employees Inter-
national Union's Local 82. "They traumatize the system, they make people uncom-
fortable, they disrupt daily life. I like the fact that they name names. They rep-
resent people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, a lot of whom are undocu-
mented workers who don't speak English. In the Gingrich era, the suburbs have
spokesmen, but this class of citizens doesn't. . . . They sort of remind me of the
'60s."
Which is fine if you have fond memories of that decade.
"Maybe I'm out of touch, or too young or too old or I don't know what, but I just
find them reprehensible," says Brazil, who has opposed a property tax increase that
the janitors are endorsing.
He is a leader of the self-described "Magnificent Seven" — council members who
are attempting to block property taxes from rising with inflation as they do auto-
matically each year under a long-standing law. For months, the seven have been
battling Mayor Marion Barry on the issue.
But obstructionism has its limits as far as Brazil is concerned.
"I just don't support using guerrilla tactics," he says, fuming about the day Justice
for Janitors invaded his office. "My private office" he says. "They locked the doors
and wouldn't leave. We had to drill holes in the door and carry them out of there.
That's plain old disrespect and hooUganism."
When they march, they carry signs saying that D.C. has Carr trouble, as in OUver
T. Carr Jr., the city's largest landlord. Considering that the city is broke, they think
he should pay more taxes.
"They're a nuisance,"says Karen Widmayer, speaking for the Oliver Carr Co. Carr
himself "will not talk about this," she says. "It doesn't merit him talking about it.
I think the contempt charges we brought against them [after they picketed Carr's
home last month] are probably the most appropriate commentary."
D.C. Superior Court Judge Ann O'Regan Keary ruled last week that the janitors
were indeed picketing and not prajdng, as they had claimed, and that they thereby
violated a restraining order. She ordered them to pay Carr's legal costs — about
$15,000. That was after she watched a videotape of the demonstrators marching and
chanting "We'll be back" outside of the house where Carr's wife, Kathleen, and the
couple's infant triplets were said to be "terrified."
Not all of the janitors' demonstrations are that dramatic, though.
They marched in circles one recent afternoon, shaking soda cans filled with BB's,
making a rhythmic, almost calming noise. It was lunchtime and the sidewalks
49
would have been busy even without the demonstrators some 70-strong. As they
milled around on the comers of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, sales-
men rumbled by pushing luggage carts piled high with copiers and computer equip-
ment. Sightseeing elementary school students bunched their two neat lines into one
amoebic mass as they hit the crosswalk. They seemed mildly intrigued by the dem-
onstrators, but not transfixed.
Even the police were cool, sticking to one comer, close to their three cruisers.
They had a patrol wagon at the ready, but it was clear they didn't expect trouble.
And they got none, even though they ended up arresting eight of the demonstrators.
In response to a signal, those who had been selected to be civilly disobedient mo-
seyed out to the middle of the intersection and sat down right in front of Carr Co.
headquarters.
"I guess they got their job to do too," Herring, 24, says of the cops. They treat
us nice, though, 'cause they remember we were down at the District Building pro-
testing with tnem."
Herring was a janitor at CNN's Capitol Hill headquarters before quitting to be-
come a full-time organizer at Local 82. In the year that has passed, the Ballou High
School graduate has been "CD'd," or arrested for civil disobedience, seven times.
"When I first started, I was shy," Herring says. "But then it got fun, to go out
and protest." And it got surreal, as she found herself shoulder to shoulder with po-
lice officers a month ago, turning out at a D.C. Council meeting. The police were
there to protest a 12 percent pay cut the council had ordered for the department's
unionized workers. The janitors were there to protest everything. Or so it seemed
to come.
"There's not a clear logic between what they're saying and what they're doing,"
says Brazil. "Essentially they use anarchy as a means of organizing workers. Aiid
they do that under the mantle of justice — for janitors — or whoever else they want
to organize."
Brazil's media person, Sally Weinbrom, described the demonstrating janitors with
a singularly anachronistic phrase. They're "outside agitators," she says. They're po-
liticizing the debate without effecting what seems to be their goal
Fithian, 33, a Justice for Janitors organizer who is from New York state but who
has lived in the District for nearly nine years, says her union has a giant agenda
for fairly simple reasons.
"Our members are residents of the District of Columbia who rely on city services,
schools and health programs," she says. "They are not living high on the hog. Many
of them are living paycheck to paycheck, and when you have services being cut, they
are affected."
Herring, who has two sets of twins — ages 7 and 2 — and whose husband is an un-
employed bricklayer, sizes up the city's budget crisis in practical terms. There's the
shortening of the public school year, the cutback of the police department's budget.
"I live in Southeast, in a bad neighborhood," she says. "We have drug dealers and
shootings and things like that. We really need the police there, so that's what really
made me get involved."
If Carr and other real estate managers were to pay their "fair share" of property
taxes, Herring believes, the city would be in better shape. But Brazil and his col-
leagues have a different definition of fairness.
"People have got to start seeing government cutting itself back," Brazil says. "Peo-
ple are looking for that kind of a signal now. It's getting real hairy now with a lot
of people and businesses trjdng to decide whether they're leaving or stajdng. . . .
"The days of tax and spend have to be over."
150 Arrested in Downtown D.C. Protest; 650 Union Activists, Supporters
Block Commuter Traffic for 2nd Day
march 23, 1995, washington post
[By Wendy Melillo]
About 150 protesters were arrested yesterday after they blocked traffic at a down-
town Washington intersection during the second day of demonstrations by union ac-
tivists and their supporters, authorities said.
About 650 protesters sat down in the intersection of 17th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, blocking traffic In all directions for about 15 minutes during the start
of the evening commuter rush, D.C. police said.
The demonstration was organized by the Service Employees International Union
and its Local 82, which represents office building custodial workers and parking at-
on the 14th Street Bridge and a similar demonstration four months ago.
The traffic blockade yesterday came at the end of a day-long campaign of dem-
onstrations that are part of the union's "Justice for Janitors" campaign. Protesters
gathered at 16th and I streets NW about 4:30 p.m. and marched to 17th and Penn-
sylvania Avenue, which is near the downtown offices of Carr Real Estate Services.
The business, owned by developer Oliver Carr, has been a frequent target of the
union, which is trying to organize janitorial employees in commercial building.
Renaye Manley, a spokeswoman for the union local, said poUce officers handled
protesters roughly during the arrests.
No one reported being injured, however, and no one was hospitalized, police said.
Inspector David M. Bostrom, commander of the D.C. police special operations divi-
sion, said the protesters locked arms and had to be dragged from the intersection.
"We used what force wee necessary to take people into custody who were not in-
terested in being arrested," he said.
Bostrom said police also were concerned about the safety of the protesters in the
street.
"At several locations people were honking their horns and getting out of their
cars," Bostrom said. "We were concerned that motorists were going to assault the
protesters."
Manlay said yesterdays demonstrations were an attempt to draw attention to
what union officials describe as the role of major developers in the District's budget
crisis. The union has criticized the D.C. Council's attempt to roll back commercial
property tax rates, which would cost the District $40 miluon when the city is facing
a $722 million budget shortfall.
Karen Widmayer, a spokeswoman for Carr Real Estate Services, said the union
is using the property tax issue to mask the real issue they are concerned about: the
unionization of service workers in Washington.
"We feel their demonstrations are consistent with the tactics the union has em-
ployed in other cities by singUng out a single company to gain the media attention
they are hungering for," Wiclmayer said.
Janitors Union Expands Its Campaign; Rally for Office Crews Mushrooms
Into Highly Visible Crusade Against D.C. Program Cuts
MARCH 13, 1995, WASHINGTON POST
[By Pamela Constable]
For several years, the protests were small and innocuous: a dozen people circling
a downtown office building, banging drums and shaking soda cans full of dried com.
Then last winter, they became more daring: lines of marchers blocking Pennsylvania
Avenue, disrupting rush-hour traffic.
This week, the "Justice for Janitors" campaign of the Service Employees Inter-
national Union, burst into high visibility in the Washington area, with hundreds of
activists staging a demonstration each day.
At the same time, the seven-year crusade to organize office cleaning crews in the
District has taken on a more ambitious agenda. More than 200 people were arrested
in mass protests Monday and Tuesday as they blocked streets. And yesterday, labor
activists from a half-dozen cities joined a rally of 500 people in Freedom Plaza
downtown, demanding that the District stop giving tax breaks to real estate devel-
opers while cutting social programs for poor and working-class people.
"This isn't just about 5,000 Janitors; it's about issues that concern all D.C. resi-
dents— what's happening to their schools, their streets, their neighborhood," said
Manny Pastreich, a union spokesman. "We're going to continue to escalate forward.
He can't do this every week, but each time we do, it gets bigger."
The s3Tnbol targeted by demonstrators was Oliver Carr, the District's largest pri-
vate real estate developer, whose companies own or manage 30 office buildings. On
Monday, protesters picketed Carr's Bethesda home. Demonstrators hoisted placards
with his photograph yesterday and chanted, "Save our city! Tax Oliver Carr!"
Protesters distributed literature that accused Carr's companies of getting huge tax
breaks, in part through lobbying to have property assessments reduced. The union
also condemned the D.C. Council's continuing efforts to undo an increase in commer-
cial property taxes.
"I'm here to protest the council giving $32 million to Carr and his millionaire bud-
dies, while they're cutting health cUnics and schools and trash pickup for the rest
of us," said Ollie Blocker, a federal office cleaner and mother of four.
51
Executives at Carr Real Estate Services said union organizers had singled out
Carr simply because of the size of his enterprises. They said that D.C. commercial
property taxes have gone up 300 percent in 10 years and that the tax assessment
process is similar to that used in most other cities.
Karen Widmayer, a spokeswoman for Carr, alleged that the union had "history
of operating this way . . . terrorizing and aggravating." Carr executives said they
have a "strictly neutral" position on the unionization of janitors, however, and that
30 percent of Carr buildings are cleaned by union members.
Widmayer said the company filed charges against the union yesterday in D.C. Su-
perior Court, alleging it had violated a court injunction issued last December that
prohibited protesters from coming closer than 500 feet to any Carr family residence,
or closer than 20 feet to any Carr-owned building.
Several D.C. Council members said they also were disturbed by the union's ag-
gressive tactics. Council member Bill Lightfoot (D-At Large) said the protesters had
"oversimplified the issue and misrepresented the truth" about property taxes and
that small businesses would have been most hurt by a tax increase.
Despite the frosty reaction from official and corporate circles, the demonstrators
were high-spirited yesterday as they marched around several downtown blocks
under a police escort. There were city office workers in trench coats, union organiz-
ers in baseball jackets from Orlando and Detroit, and janitors from Central America
in jeans and sneakers.
No arrests were made, and District police officials said they were willing to co-
operate with the union as long as the marchers did not break the law by sitting
down in the street or blocking traffic.
Greg Ceci, a longshoreman fi-om Baltimore, said he came to show solidarity with
the janitors and because he senses the labor movement is becoming revitalized by
recent attacks from the Republican right.
"I don't know who Oliver Carr is, but I know we need to stop resting on our lau-
rels and letting the right wing whack away at us," Ceci said. "We need to reach
out to the workers who have been ignored by mainstream unions. We need to fight
back, and I want to be part of it."
Mr. Davis. We will hold the record open for 2 weeks from this
date for those who may want to forward submissions for somebody
inclusion.
These proceedings are closed.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
o
36-598 (56)
ISBN 0-16-053970-6
780
60"539701
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11